Sanger Confirmation Is Required to Achieve Optimal Sensitivity and Specificity in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing

Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 923-932

  Mu, Wenbo ^a   Lu, Hsiao Mei ^a   Chen, Jefferey ^a   Li, Shuwei ^a   Elliott, Aaron M ^a  

^a AMBRY GENETICS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AT RICH SEQUENCE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILIAL CANCER; GC RICH SEQUENCE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC ANALYZER; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; HUMAN; MOSAICISM; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION SYSTEM; PSEUDOGENE; SANGER SEQUENCING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ALLELE; DNA SEQUENCE; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

TUMOR MARKER;

ALLELES; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETIC TESTING; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84992110959     PISSN: 15251578     EISSN: 19437811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 1 Sikkema-Raddatz, B., Johansson, L.F., de Boer, E.N., Almomani, R., Boven, L.G., van den Berg, M.P., van Spaendonck-Zwarts, K.Y., van Tintelen, J.P., Sijmons, R.H., Jongbloed, J.D., Sinke, R.J., Targeted next-generation sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat 34 (2013), 1035–1042.
2. 2 Chong, H.K., Wang, T., Lu, H.M., Seidler, S., Lu, H., Keiles, S., Chao, E.C., Stuenkel, A.J., Li, X., Elliott, A.M., The validation and clinical implementation of BRCAplus: a comprehensive high-risk breast cancer diagnostic assay. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e97408.
3. 3 Walsh, T., Lee, M.K., Casadei, S., Thornton, A.M., Stray, S.M., Pennil, C., Nord, A.S., Mandell, J.B., Swisher, E.M., King, M.C., Detection of inherited mutations for breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture and massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107 (2010), 12629–12633.
4. 4 Lincoln, S.E., Kobayashi, Y., Anderson, M.J., Yang, S., Desmond, A.J., Mills, M.A., Nilsen, G.B., Jacobs, K.B., Monzon, F.A., Kurian, A.W., Ford, J.M., Ellisen, L.W., A systematic comparison of traditional and multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes in more than 1000 patients. J Mol Diagn 17 (2015), 533–544.
5. 5 Judkins, T., Leclair, B., Bowles, K., Gutin, N., Trost, J., McCulloch, J., Bhatnagar, S., Murray, A., Craft, J., Wardell, B., Bastian, M., Mitchell, J., Chen, J., Tran, T., Williams, D., Potter, J., Jammulapati, S., Perry, M., Morris, B., Roa, B., Timms, K., Development and analytical validation of a 25-gene next generation sequencing panel that includes the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to assess hereditary cancer risk. BMC Cancer, 15, 2015, 215 [Internet] doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1224-y.
6. 6 Hall, M.J., Forman, A.D., Pilarski, R., Wiesner, G., Giri, V.N., Gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12 (2014), 1339–1346.
7. 7 Aziz, N., Zhao, Q., Bry, L., Driscoll, D.K., Funke, B., Gibson, J.S., Grody, W.W., Hegde, M.R., Hoeltge, G.A., Leonard, D.G., Merker, J.D., Nagarajan, R., Palicki, L.A., Robetorye, R.S., Schrijver, I., Weck, K.E., Voelkerding, K.V., College of American Pathologists’ laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139 (2015), 481–493.
8. 8 Rehm, H.L., Bale, S.J., Bayrak-Toydemir, P., Berg, J.S., Brown, K.K., Deignan, J.L., Friez, M.J., Funke, B.H., Hegde, M.R., Lyon, E., ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med 15 (2013), 733–747.
9. 9 Strom, S.P., Lee, H., Das, K., Vilain, E., Nelson, S.F., Grody, W.W., Deignan, J.L., Assessing the necessity of confirmatory testing for exome-sequencing results in a clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory. Genet Med 16 (2014), 510–515.
10. 10 Baudhuin, L.M., Lagerstedt, S.A., Klee, E.W., Fadra, N., Oglesbee, D., Ferber, M.J., Confirming variants in next-generation sequencing panel testing by Sanger sequencing. J Mol Diagn 17 (2015), 456–461.
11. 11 Lek, M., Karczewski, K., Minikel, E., Samocha, K., Banks, E., Fennell, T., et al., Exome Aggregation Consortium. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536 (2016), 285–291.
12. 12 Kuiper, R.P., Vissers, L.E., Venkatachalam, R., Bodmer, D., Hoenselaar, E., Goossens, M., et al. Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome. Hum Mutat 32 (2011), 407–414.
13. 13 Jaeger, E., Leedham, S., Lewis, A., Segditsas, S., Becker, M., Cuadrado, P.R., Davis, H., Kaur, K., Heinimann, K., Howarth, K., East, J., Taylor, J., Thomas, H., Tomlinson, I., Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome is caused by a 40-kb upstream duplication that leads to increased and ectopic expression of the BMP antagonist GREM1. Nat Genet 44 (2012), 699–703.
14. 14 Bertolotto, C., Lesueur, F., Giuliano, S., Strub, T., de Lichy, M., Bille, K., et al. A SUMOylation-defective MITF germline mutation predisposes to melanoma and renal carcinoma. [Erratum appeared in Nature 2016, 531:126] Nature 480 (2011), 94–98.
15. 15 Fu, W., O'Connor, T.D., Jun, G., Kang, H.M., Abecasis, G., Leal, S.M., Gabriel, S., Rieder, M.J., Altshuler, D., Shendure, J., Nickerson, D.A., Bamshad, M.J. NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project, Akey, J.M., Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature 493 (2013), 216–220.
16. 16 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Abecasis, G.R., Auton, A., Brooks, L.D., DePristo, M.A., Durbin, R.M., Handsaker, R.E., Kang, H.M., Marth, G.T., McVean, G.A., An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature 491 (2012), 56–65.
17. 17 Richards, S., Aziz, N., Bale, S., Bick, D., Das, S., Gastier-Foster, J., Grody, W.W., Hegde, M., Lyon, E., Spector, E., Voelkerding, K., Rehm, H.L., Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17 (2015), 405–424.
18. 18 Tavtigian, S.V., Greenblatt, M.S., Goldgar, D.E., Boffetta, P., IARC Unclassified Genetic Variants Working Group. Assessing pathogenicity: overview of results from the IARC Unclassified Genetic Variants Working Group. Hum Mutat 29 (2008), 1261–1264.
19. 19 Benjamini, Y., Speed, T.P., Summarizing and correcting the GC content bias in high-throughput screening. Nucleic Acids Res, 40, 2012, e72.
20. 20 Ratan, A., Miller, W., Guillory, J., Stinson, J., Seshagiri, S., Schuster, S.C., Comparison of sequencing platforms for single nucleotide variant calls in a human sample. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e55089.
21. 21 Quail, M.A., Smith, M., Coupland, P., Otto, T.D., Harris, S.R., Connor, T.R., Bertoni, A., Swerdlow, H.P., Gu, Y., A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion Torrent, Pacific Biosciences and Illumina MiSeq sequencers. BMC Genomics, 13, 2012, 341 [Internet] doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-341.
22. 22 Sodha, N., Williams, R., Mangion, J., Bullock, S.L., Yuille, M.R., Eeles, R.A., Screening hCHK2 for mutations. Science, 289, 2000, 359.
23. 23 Millson, A., Lewis, T., Pesaran, T., Salvador, D., Gillespie, K., Gau, C.L., Pont-Kingdon, G., Lyon, E., Bayrak-Toydemir, P., Processed pseudogene confounding deletion/duplication assays for SMAD4. J Mol Diagn 17 (2015), 576–582.