Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

156P - Next-generation sequencing failure due to sample quality issues in rare tumors: Retrospective single-institution analysis

Date

15 Mar 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Boris Itkin

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 9 (suppl_2): 1-5. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop102403

Authors

B. Itkin1, D.A. Abdou2, P. Deshpande3, A. Pullanhi4, Z.G. Sawaya5, S. Al Zadjali4, I. Al Haddabi3, H. Al-Sayegh4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, SQCCCRC - Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Centre, H5JG+9VW - Seeb/OM
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Center, H5JG+9VW - Seeb/OM
  • 3 Pathology, SQCCCRC - Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Centre, 123 - Muscat/OM
  • 4 Research Laboratory, SQCCCRC - Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Centre, 123 - Muscat/OM
  • 5 Nursing, Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Center, Seeb/OM

Resources

This content is available to ESMO members and event participants.

Abstract 156P

Background

Sensitivity of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) methods to tissue sample quantity and quality is insufficiently reported in rare tumors. We conducted a retrospective study to estimate the NGS failure rate due to insufficient quantity or quality of material in rare tumors and to identify its predictors.

Methods

Patients with sarcomas, rare carcinomas, and rare melanomas who underwent NGS at SQCCCRC between January 2022 and October 2023 were eligible. Clinicopathological and NGS-related data were extracted from clinical charts and quantitatively described. We constructed a univariable logistic regression models with the outcome variable Insufficient quantity or quality of material, and the following explanatory variables: Assay [whole exome sequencing (WES) vs. targeted panel], Sampling method (surgery vs. biopsy), Source tissue (bone vs. soft tissue), and Storage time.

Results

We identified 102 NGS reports from 86 patients with sarcomas (73.3%), rare carcinomas (16.3%), and rare melanomas (10.5%). The median age was 40 years, interquartile range (IQR) = 23-61 years. Samples were obtained by biopsy (51%) and surgery (48%) from soft tissue (92.1%) or bone (7.9%) lesions. The median storage time was 2.5 months (IQR = 1.3 - 4.6). Targeted sequencing and WES were used in 39.2% and 60.8% of reports, respectively. Material quantity or quality was insufficient in 14.7% of tests and 4.7% of patients. Repeated testing was successful in 7 out of 8 patients. WES was significantly associated with higher probability of NGS failure due to low quantity or quality of material as compared to targeted panel (OR = 11.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.4 - 90.4, p = 0.022). No other variable significantly predicted NGS failure.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the overall, the NGS failure rate due to sample quantity or quality issues is low. WES demands significantly higher sample quantity and quality compared to targeted panels. Retesting can often overcome quantity or quality issues.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.