DNA methylation‐array interlaboratory comparison trial demonstrates highly reproducible paediatric CNS tumour classification across 13 international centres

Mihaela Chirica,Philipp Jurmeister,Daniel Teichmann,Arend Koch,Eilís Perez,Simone Schmid,Michèle Simon,Pablo Hernáiz Driever,Carina Bodden,Cornelis M. van Tilburg,Emily C. Hardin,Cinzia Lavarino,Jürgen Hench,David Scheie,Jane Cryan,Ales Vicha,Francesca R. Buttarelli,An Michiels,Christine Haberler,Paulette Barahona,Bastiaan B. J. Tops,Tom Jacques,Tore Stokland,Olaf Witt,David T. W. Jones,David Capper
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nan.13010
2024-10-16
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
Abstract:We conducted a laboratory comparison trial involving 12 international laboratories to test the technical aspects of DNA methylation data generation and profile interpretation. Participants received a DNA aliquot of four low‐grade gliomas and performed the DNA methylation‐based classification and result interpretation without knowledge of histology, interpreted the copy number profiles and conducted DNA sequencing of the BRAF hotspot p.V600. Results showed a high technical reproducibility with a median pairwise correlation of 0.99 (range 0.94–0.99) between coordinating laboratory and participants. Aims DNA methylation profiling, recently endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a pivotal diagnostic tool for brain tumours, most commonly relies on bead arrays. Despite its widespread use, limited data exist on the technical reproducibility and potential cross‐institutional differences. The LOGGIC Core BioClinical Data Bank registry conducted a prospective laboratory comparison trial with 12 international laboratories to enhance diagnostic accuracy for paediatric low‐grade gliomas, focusing on technical aspects of DNA methylation data generation and profile interpretation under clinical real‐time conditions. Methods Four representative low‐grade gliomas of distinct histologies were centrally selected, and DNA extraction was performed. Participating laboratories received a DNA aliquot and performed the DNA methylation‐based classification and result interpretation without knowledge of tumour histology. Additionally, participants were required to interpret the copy number profile derived from DNA methylation data and conduct DNA sequencing of the BRAF hotspot p.V600 due to its relevance for low‐grade gliomas. Results had to be returned within 30 days. Results High technical reproducibility was observed, with a median pairwise correlation of 0.99 (range 0.94–0.99) between coordinating laboratory and participants. DNA methylation‐based tumour classification and copy number profile interpretation were consistent across all centres, and BRAF mutation status was accurately reported for all cases. Eleven out of 12 centres successfully reported their analysis within the 30‐day timeframe. Conclusion Our study demonstrates remarkable concordance in DNA methylation profiling and profile interpretation across 12 international centres. These findings underscore the potential contribution of DNA methylation analysis to the harmonisation of brain tumour diagnostics.
pathology,neurosciences,clinical neurology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?