Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine (대한병리학회지)

The Korean Society of Pathologists (대한병리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Good Laboratory Standards for Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Cancer Panel Tests

  • Kim, Jihun (Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Woong-Yang (Samsung Genome Institute, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Nayoung K.D. (Samsung Genome Institute, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Se Jin (Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Chun, Sung-Min (Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Chang-Ohk (Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Jene (Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Young-Hyeh (Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Yoon-La (Department of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shim, Hyo Sup (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Won, Jae-Kyung (Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • The Molecular Pathology Study Group of Korean Society of Pathologists (Korean Society of Pathologists)
  • Received : 2017.02.20
  • Accepted : 2017.03.14
  • Published : 2017.05.15
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has recently emerged as an essential component of personalized cancer medicine due to its high throughput and low per-base cost. However, no sufficient guidelines for implementing NGS as a clinical molecular pathology test are established in Korea. To ensure clinical grade quality without inhibiting adoption of NGS, a taskforce team assembled by the Korean Society of Pathologists developed laboratory guidelines for NGS cancer panel testing procedures and requirements for clinical implementation of NGS. This consensus standard proposal consists of two parts: laboratory guidelines and requirements for clinical NGS laboratories. The laboratory guidelines part addressed several important issues across multistep NGS cancer panel tests including choice of gene panel and platform, sample handling, nucleic acid management, sample identity tracking, library preparation, sequencing, analysis and reporting. Requirements for clinical NGS tests were summarized in terms of documentation, validation, quality management, and other required written policies. Together with appropriate pathologist training and international laboratory standards, these laboratory standards would help molecular pathology laboratories to successfully implement NGS cancer panel tests in clinic. In this way, the oncology community would be able to help patients to benefit more from personalized cancer medicine.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Korean Society of Pathologists

References

  1. Bentley DR, Balasubramanian S, Swerdlow HP, et al. Accurate whole human genome sequencing using reversible terminator chemistry. Nature 2008; 456: 53-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07517
  2. Metzker ML. Sequencing technologies: the next generation. Nat Rev Genet 2010; 11: 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2626
  3. Aziz N, Zhao Q, Bry L, et al. College of American Pathologists' laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139: 481-93. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0250-CP
  4. Rehm HL, Bale SJ, Bayrak-Toydemir P, et al. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15: 733-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.92
  5. Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK. WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Revised 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press, 2016.
  6. Burghel GJ, Hurst CD, Watson CM, et al. Towards a next-generation sequencing diagnostic service for tumour genotyping: a comparison of panels and platforms. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015:478017.
  7. Hinrichs JW, van Blokland WT, Moons MJ, et al. Comparison of next-generation sequencing and mutation-specific platforms in clinical practice. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 143: 573-8. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP40XETVYAMJPY
  8. McCourt CM, McArt DG, Mills K, et al. Validation of next generation sequencing technologies in comparison to current diagnostic gold standards for BRAF, EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e69604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069604
  9. Hicks DG, Boyce BF. The challenge and importance of standardizing pre-analytical variables in surgical pathology specimens for clinical care and translational research. Biotech Histochem 2012; 87: 14-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/10520295.2011.591832
  10. Howat WJ, Wilson BA. Tissue fixation and the effect of molecular fixatives on downstream staining procedures. Methods 2014; 70: 12-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.022
  11. Do H, Dobrovic A. Sequence artifacts in DNA from formalin-fixed tissues: causes and strategies for minimization. Clin Chem 2015; 61: 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.223040
  12. Do H, Wong SQ, Li J, Dobrovic A. Reducing sequence artifacts in amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded DNA by enzymatic depletion of uracil-containing templates. Clin Chem 2013; 59: 1376-83. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.202390
  13. Lin MT, Mosier SL, Thiess M, et al. Clinical validation of KRAS, BRAF, and EGFR mutation detection using next-generation sequencing. Am J Clin Pathol 2014; 141: 856-66. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPMWGWGO34EGOD
  14. Serizawa M, Yokota T, Hosokawa A, et al. The efficacy of uracil DNA glycosylase pretreatment in amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing with DNA extracted from archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded esophageal cancer tissues. Cancer Genet 2015; 208: 415-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2015.05.001
  15. Marchetti A, Felicioni L, Buttitta F. Assessing EGFR mutations. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 526-8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc052564
  16. Choi SE, Hong SW, Yoon SO. Proposal of an appropriate decalcification method of bone marrow biopsy specimens in the era of expanding genetic molecular study. J Pathol Transl Med 2015; 49: 236-42. https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2015.03.16
  17. Pengelly RJ, Gibson J, Andreoletti G, Collins A, Mattocks CJ, Ennis S. A SNP profiling panel for sample tracking in whole-exome sequencing studies. Genome Med 2013; 5: 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm492
  18. Brownstein CA, Beggs AH, Homer N, et al. An international effort towards developing standards for best practices in analysis, interpretation and reporting of clinical genome sequencing results in the CLARITY Challenge. Genome Biol 2014; 15: R53. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r53
  19. Cornish A, Guda C. A comparison of variant calling pipelines using genome in a bottle as a reference. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 456479.
  20. Hwang S, Kim E, Lee I, Marcotte EM. Systematic comparison of variant calling pipelines using gold standard personal exome variants. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 17875.
  21. Teo SM, Pawitan Y, Ku CS, Chia KS, Salim A. Statistical challenges associated with detecting copy number variations with next-generation sequencing. Bioinformatics 2012; 28: 2711-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts535
  22. Onsongo G, Baughn LB, Bower M, et al. CNV-RF is a random forest-based copy number variation detection method using nextgeneration sequencing. J Mol Diagn 2016; 18: 872-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.001
  23. Frampton GM, Fichtenholtz A, Otto GA, et al. Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol 2013; 31: 1023-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2696
  24. Deans ZC, Costa JL, Cree I, et al. Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL. Virchows Arch 2017; 470: 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-016-2025-7
  25. ISO 15189: 2012 Medical laboratories: requirements for quality and competence [Internet]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, c2012-2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15189:ed-3:v2:en.
  26. Nomenclature for the description of sequence variants [Internet]. Melbourne: Human Genome Variation Society, c2010-2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: http://www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/.
  27. Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn 2017; 19: 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002
  28. Use of standards in FDA regulatory oversight of next generation sequencing (NGS)-based in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) used for diagnosing germline diseases [Internet]. Rockville: US Department of Health and Services, Food and Drug Administration, c2016-2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM509838.pdf.
  29. Chin EL, da Silva C, Hegde M. Assessment of clinical analytical sensitivity and specificity of next-generation sequencing for detection of simple and complex mutations. BMC Genet 2013; 14: 6.
  30. Cottrell CE, Al-Kateb H, Bredemeyer AJ, et al. Validation of a nextgeneration sequencing assay for clinical molecular oncology. J Mol Diagn 2014; 16: 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.10.002
  31. Hagemann IS, Cottrell CE, Lockwood CM. Design of targeted, capture-based, next generation sequencing tests for precision cancer therapy. Cancer Genet 2013; 206: 420-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2013.11.003
  32. Williams ES, Hegde M. Implementing genomic medicine in pathology. Adv Anat Pathol 2013; 20: 238-44. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e3182977199
  33. Zook JM, Chapman B, Wang J, et al. Integrating human sequence data sets provides a resource of benchmark SNP and indel genotype calls. Nat Biotechnol 2014; 32: 246-51. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2835
  34. National Center for Biotechnology Information. GeT-RM Homo sapiens [Internet]. Bethesda: US National Library of Medicine, c2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/variation/tools/get-rm/.
  35. Ajay SS, Parker SC, Abaan HO, Fajardo KV, Margulies EH. Accurate and comprehensive sequencing of personal genomes. Genome Res 2011; 21: 1498-505. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.123638.111
  36. Gargis AS, Kalman L, Berry MW, et al. Assuring the quality of nextgeneration sequencing in clinical laboratory practice. Nat Biotechnol 2012; 30: 1033-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2403
  37. Gargis AS, Kalman L, Bick DP, et al. Good laboratory practice for clinical next-generation sequencing informatics pipelines. Nat Biotechnol 2015; 33: 689-93. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3237
  38. Association for Molecular Pathology. Clinical practice guidelines [Internet]. Bethesda: Association for Molecular Pathology, c2009-2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.amp.org/committees/clinical_practice/AMPclinicalpracticeguidelines.cfm.
  39. ESMO clinical practice guidelines [Internet]. Viganello-Lugano: European Society for Medical Oncology, c2017 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: http://www.esmo.org/Guidelines.
  40. Cree IA, Deans Z, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients. J Clin Pathol 2014; 67: 923-31. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202404
  41. Luthra R, Chen H, Roy-Chowdhuri S, Singh RR. Next-generation sequencing in clinical molecular diagnostics of cancer: advantages and challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7: 2023-36. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers7040874
  42. Schrijver I, Aziz N, Farkas DH, et al. Opportunities and challenges associated with clinical diagnostic genome sequencing: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn 2012; 14: 525-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2012.04.006
  43. Next generation sequence analysis (NGS). Clinical laboratory certification guidelines [Internet]. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, c2016 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from: http://www.mfds.go.kr/index.do?mid=1161&seq=11001&cmd=v.
  44. Cheng DT, Mitchell TN, Zehir A, et al. Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSKIMPACT): a hybridization capture-based next-generation sequencing clinical assay for solid tumor molecular oncology. J Mol Diagn 2015; 17: 251-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.12.006
  45. Fisher KE, Zhang L, Wang J, et al. Clinical validation and implementation of a targeted next-generation sequencing assay to detect somatic variants in non-small cell lung, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Mol Diagn 2016; 18: 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.11.006
  46. Pritchard CC, Salipante SJ, Koehler K, et al. Validation and implementation of targeted capture and sequencing for the detection of actionable mutation, copy number variation, and gene rearrangement in clinical cancer specimens. J Mol Diagn 2014; 16: 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.08.004
  47. Sikkema-Raddatz B, Johansson LF, de Boer EN, et al. Targeted nextgeneration sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat 2013; 34: 1035-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22332

Cited by

  1. Value-based genomics vol.9, pp.21, 2018, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24353
  2. Use of the Ion PGM and the GeneReader NGS Systems in Daily Routine Practice for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients: A Practical Point of View Reporting a Comparative Study and Assessment of 90 Pati vol.10, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10040088
  3. Recent Advancement of the Molecular Diagnosis in Pediatric Brain Tumor vol.61, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0057
  4. The long tail of molecular alterations in non-small cell lung cancer: a single-institution experience of next-generation sequencing in clinical molecular diagnostics vol.71, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205032
  5. Clinical laboratory utilization management and improved healthcare performance vol.55, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2018.1526164
  6. Development of HLA-A, -B and -DR Typing Method Using Next-Generation Sequencing vol.29, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2018.29.3.310
  7. Standard operating procedure for somatic variant refinement of sequencing data with paired tumor and normal samples vol.21, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0278-z
  8. Benchmark Database for Process Optimization and Quality Control of Clinical Cancer Panel Sequencing vol.24, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-019-0202-7
  9. Analytical Evaluation of an NGS Testing Method for Routine Molecular Diagnostics on Melanoma Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tumor-Derived DNA vol.9, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9030117
  10. Pharmacogenomic Testing: Clinical Evidence and Implementation Challenges vol.9, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm9030040
  11. Application Areas of Traditional Molecular Genetic Methods and NGS in relation to Hereditary Urological Cancer Diagnosis vol.2020, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7363102
  12. Assembling and Validating Bioinformatic Pipelines for Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assays vol.144, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0476-ra
  13. Risk Stratification Using a Novel Genetic Classifier Including PLEKHS1 Promoter Mutations for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with Distant Metastasis vol.30, pp.11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2019.0459
  14. 16S rDNA microbiome composition pattern analysis as a diagnostic biomarker for biliary tract cancer vol.18, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-1793-3
  15. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)-Based Quality Information Exchange for Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Genomic Testing: Implementation Study vol.23, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2196/26261
  16. Molecular biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer: consensus statement of the Korean Cardiopulmonary Pathology Study Group vol.55, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2021.03.23
  17. Clinical Quality Considerations when Using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in Clinical Drug Development vol.55, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-021-00308-6
  18. MSI testing : What’s new? What should be considered? vol.42, pp.suppl1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-021-00948-3