Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25430497›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2015

Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial.

Joshua R Kapp, Tim Diss, James Spicer, Michael Gandy, Iris Schrijver, Lawrence J Jennings, Marilyn M Li, Gregory J Tsongalis, David Gonzalez de Castro, Julia A Bridge and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Using ddPCR to assess the DNA yield of FFPE samples.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. UncommonLung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Circulating Cell-Free Tumour DNA in the Management of Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua R KappDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Tim DissUniversity College London Advanced Diagnostics, University College London, London, UK.
James SpicerDivision of Research Oncology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Michael GandyUniversity College London Advanced Diagnostics, University College London, London, UK.
Iris SchrijverDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA.
Lawrence J JenningsDepartment of Pathology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Marilyn M LiDepartment of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
Gregory J TsongalisDepartment of Pathology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, USA.
David Gonzalez de CastroInstitute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Julia A BridgeDepartment of Pathology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Andrew WallaceRegional Genetics Laboratory, Central Manchester University Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Joshua L DeignanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA.
Sandra HingPaediatric Malignancy Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK.
Rachel ButlerAll Wales Genetics Laboratory, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Eldo VerghesePathology and Tumour biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Gary J LathamAsuragen, Austin, USA.
Rifat A HamoudiDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBAsuragen (United States) · USBaylor College of Medicine · USCardiff and Vale University Health Board · GBDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorthwestern University · USRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBStanford Medicine · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsMutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation.

methods13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation.

resultsRate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p<0.0001), and yield variation from engineered samples was not significant (p=0.3782). Two laboratories failed DNA extraction from samples that may be attributed to operator error. DNA extraction protocols themselves were not found to contribute significant variation. 10/13 labs reported yields averaging 235.8 ng (95% CI 90.7 to 380.9) from cell-negative samples, which was attributed to issues with spectrophotometry. DNA measurements using Qubit Fluorometry demonstrated a median fivefold overestimation of DNA quantity by Nanodrop Spectrophotometry. DNA integrity and PCR inhibition were factors not found to contribute significant variation.

conclusionsIn this study, we provide evidence demonstrating that variation in pre-PCR steps is prevalent and may detrimentally affect the patient's ability to receive critical therapy. We provide recommendations for preanalytical workflow optimisation that may reduce errors in down-stream sequencing and for next-generation sequencing library generation.

Indexed as

Laboratory Proficiency TestingMutationCell Line, TumorDiagnostic ErrorsDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmErbB ReceptorsFixativesFluorometryFormaldehydeHumansObserver VariationParaffin EmbeddingPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF protein, humanDNA, NeoplasmEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsFixativesFormaldehydeProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafdiagnostic screeningLUNG CANCERMELANOMAMOLECULAR PATHOLOGYPCR

Identifiers

PMID25430497
PMCPMC4316935
OpenAlexW2156918898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.