Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31029168›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Targeted capture-based NGS is superior to multiplex PCR-based NGS for hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene analysis in FFPE tumor samples.

Falk Zakrzewski, Laura Gieldon, Andreas Rump, Michael Seifert, Konrad Grützmann, Alexander Krüger, Sina Loos, Silke Zeugner, Karl Hackmann, Joseph Porrmann and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Cancers · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Germline and SomaticFrontiers in oncology · 2020
    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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Falk ZakrzewskiCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Falk.Zakrzewski@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Laura GieldonCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Andreas RumpInstitute for Clinical Genetics, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Michael SeifertInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry (IMB), Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Konrad GrützmannCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Alexander KrügerCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Sina LoosInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Silke ZeugnerInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Karl HackmannInstitute for Clinical Genetics, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Joseph PorrmannInstitute for Clinical Genetics, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Johannes WagnerInstitute for Clinical Genetics, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Karin KastNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany.
Pauline WimbergerNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany.
Gustavo BarettonCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Evelin SchröckCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Daniela AustCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Barbara KlinkCore Unit for Molecular Tumor Diagnostics (CMTD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Schubertstraße 15, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Technische Universität Dresden · DENational Center for Tumor Diseases · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEDeutschen Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung · DEGerman Cancer Society · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the introduction of Olaparib treatment for BRCA-deficient recurrent ovarian cancer, testing for somatic and/or germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes in tumor tissues became essential for treatment decisions. In most cases only formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, containing fragmented and chemically modified DNA of minor quality, are available. Thus, multiplex PCR-based sequencing is most commonly applied in routine molecular testing, which is predominantly focused on the identification of known hot spot mutations in oncogenes.

methodsWe compared the overall performance of an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol and a multiplex PCR-based approach for calling of pathogenic SNVs and InDels using DNA extracted from 13 FFPE tissue samples. We further applied both strategies to seven blood samples and five matched FFPE tumor tissues of patients with known germline exon-spanning deletions and gene-wide duplications in BRCA1/2 to evaluate CNV detection based solely on panel NGS data. Finally, we analyzed DNA from FFPE tissues of 11 index patients from families suspected of having hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, of whom no blood samples were available for testing, in order to identify underlying pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations.

resultsThe multiplex PCR-based protocol produced inhomogeneous coverage among targets of each sample and between samples as well as sporadic amplicon drop out, leading to insufficiently or non-covered nucleotides, which subsequently hindered variant detection. This protocol further led to detection of PCR-artifacts that could easily have been misinterpreted as pathogenic mutations. No such limitations were observed by application of an adjusted targeted capture-based protocol, which allowed for CNV calling with 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity. All pathogenic CNVs were confirmed in the five matched FFPE tumor samples from patients carrying known pathogenic germline mutations and we additionally identified somatic loss of the second allele in BRCA1/2. Furthermore we detected pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in four the eleven FFPE samples from patients of whom no blood was available for analysis.

conclusionsWe demonstrate that an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol is superior to commonly applied multiplex PCR-based protocols for reliable BRCA1/2 variant detection, including CNV-detection, using FFPE tumor samples.

Indexed as

BRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsGerm-Line MutationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingOvarian NeoplasmsDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleFormaldehydeHumansINDEL MutationMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionParaffin EmbeddingPedigreeReproducibility of ResultsTissue FixationBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinFormaldehydeBRCA1BRCA2CNV detectionFFPE tissueGenetic testingHBOCNGSPathogenic germline mutationsTargeted capture-based NGS

Identifiers

PMID31029168
PMCPMC6487025
OpenAlexW2942051411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.