4.3 Article

Effects of Different Centrifugation Protocols on the Detection of EGFR Mutations in Plasma Cell-Free DNA

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 158, 期 2, 页码 206-211

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqac024

关键词

Liquid biopsy; Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations; Cell-free DNA; Non-small cell lung cancer; Preanalytical factors; Centrifugation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effect of different centrifugation protocols on the detection of EGFR mutations in cfDNA, and found that additional high-speed centrifugation improved the detection rate of EGFR mutations in low-concentration cfDNA.
Objectives Various preanalytical factors, including the collection tube, storage conditions, and centrifugation, affect the detection results of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA). We compared the effect of different centrifugation protocols on the detection of EGFR mutations in cfDNA. Methods We analyzed 117 plasma specimens from 110 patients with non-small cell lung cancer using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (Roche Diagnostics). We compared the identified EGFR mutations and semiquantitative index values from the 1- and 2-step centrifugation groups and confirmed the clinical impact of differences in the results after further high-speed centrifugation. Results We detected EGFR mutations in 44 (37.6%) and 47 (40.2%) samples that were centrifuged once and twice, respectively; the 2 groups showed an 89.7% (105/117) concordance and a strong correlation in their semiquantitative index values (r = 0.929). Among the 12 inconsistent result pairs, 9 samples of 2-step centrifugation (75%) were consistent with the results of a recent tissue biopsy. Conclusions Additional high-speed centrifugation has been shown to increase the sensitivity of EGFR mutation detection in a commercial in vitro diagnostic real-time polymerase chain reaction device and is an optimal preanalytical factor for detecting low-allele frequency gene mutations using low concentrations of cfDNA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据