Benchmarking whole exome sequencing in the German network for personalized medicine
Michael Menzel,Mihaela Martis-Thiele,Hannah Goldschmid,Alexander Ott,Eva Romanovsky,Janna Siemanowski-Hrach,Lancelot Seillier,Nadina Ortiz Brüchle,Angela Maurer,Kjong-Van Lehmann,Matthias Begemann,Miriam Elbracht,Robert Meyer,Sebastian Dintner,Rainer Claus,Jan P Meier-Kolthoff,Eric Blanc,Markus Möbs,Maria Joosten,Manuela Benary,Patrick Basitta,Florian Hölscher,Verena Tischler,Thomas Groß,Oliver Kutz,Rebecca Prause,Doreen William,Kai Horny,Wolfgang Goering,Sugirthan Sivalingam,Arndt Borkhardt,Cornelia Blank,Stefanie V Junk,Layal Yasin,Evgeny A Moskalev,Maria Giulia Carta,Fulvia Ferrazzi,Lars Tögel,Steffen Wolter,Eugen Adam,Uta Matysiak,Tessa Rosenthal,Jürgen Dönitz,Ulrich Lehmann,Gunnar Schmidt,Stephan Bartels,Winfried Hofmann,Steffen Hirsch,Nicola Dikow,Kirsten Göbel,Rouzbeh Banan,Stefan Hamelmann,Annette Fink,Markus Ball,Olaf Neumann,Jan Rehker,Michael Kloth,Justin Murtagh,Nils Hartmann,Phillip Jurmeister,Andreas Mock,Jörg Kumbrink,Andreas Jung,Eva-Maria Mayr,Anne Jacob,Marcel Trautmann,Santina Kirmse,Kim Falkenberg,Christian Ruckert,Daniela Hirsch,Alexander Immel,Wolfgang Dietmaier,Tobias Haack,Ralf Marienfeld,Axel Fürstberger,Jakob Niewöhner,Uwe Gerstenmaier,Timo Eberhardt,Philipp A Greif,Silke Appenzeller,Katja Maurus,Julia Doll,Yvonne Jelting,Danny Jonigk,Bruno Märkl,Dieter Beule,David Horst,Anna-Lena Wulf,Daniela Aust,Martin Werner,Kirsten Reuter-Jessen,Philipp Ströbel,Bernd Auber,Felix Sahm,Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse,Udo Siebolts,Wilfried Roth,Silke Lassmann,Frederick Klauschen,Nadine T Gaisa,Wilko Weichert,Matthias Evert,Sorin Armeanu-Ebinger,Stephan Ossowski,Christopher Schroeder,Christian P Schaaf,Nisar Malek,Peter Schirmacher,Daniel Kazdal,Nicole Pfarr,Jan Budczies,Albrecht Stenzinger
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114306
Abstract:Introduction: Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) has emerged as an efficient tool in clinical cancer diagnostics to broaden the scope from panel-based diagnostics to screening of all genes and enabling robust determination of complex biomarkers in a single analysis. Methods: To assess concordance, six formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens and four commercial reference standards were analyzed by WES as matched tumor-normal DNA at 21 NGS centers in Germany, each employing local wet-lab and bioinformatics. Somatic and germline variants, copy-number alterations (CNAs), and complex biomarkers were investigated. Somatic variant calling was performed in 494 diagnostically relevant cancer genes. The raw data were collected and re-analyzed with a central bioinformatic pipeline to separate wet- and dry-lab variability. Results: The mean positive percentage agreement (PPA) of somatic variant calling was 76 % while the positive predictive value (PPV) was 89 % in relation to a consensus list of variants found by at least five centers. Variant filtering was identified as the main cause for divergent variant calls. Adjusting filter criteria and re-analysis increased the PPA to 88 % for all and 97 % for the clinically relevant variants. CNA calls were concordant for 82 % of genomic regions. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status were concordant for 94 %, 93 %, and 93 % of calls, respectively. Variability of CNAs and complex biomarkers did not decrease considerably after harmonization of the bioinformatic processing and was hence attributed mainly to wet-lab differences. Conclusion: Continuous optimization of bioinformatic workflows and participating in round robin tests are recommended.