% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Menzel:284931,
author = {M. Menzel and S. Ossowski and S. Kral and P. Metzger and P.
Horak$^*$ and R. Marienfeld and M. Börries$^*$ and S.
Wolter and M. Ball and O. Neumann and S. Armeanu-Ebinger and
C. Schroeder and U. Matysiak and H. Goldschmid and V.
Schipperges and A. Fürstberger and M. Allgäuer and T.
Eberhardt and J. Niewöhner and A. Blaumeiser$^*$ and C.
Ploeger and T. B. Haack and T. K. Y. Tay and O. Kelemen and
T. Pauli and M. Kirchner and K. Kluck and A. Ott and M.
Renner$^*$ and J. Admard and A. Gschwind and S. Lassmann and
H. Kestler and F. Fend and A. L. Illert$^*$ and M. Werner
and P. Möller and T. T. W. Seufferlein and N. Malek and P.
Schirmacher$^*$ and S. Fröhling$^*$ and D. Kazdal and J.
Budczies$^*$ and A. Stenzinger$^*$},
title = {{M}ulticentric pilot study to standardize clinical whole
exome sequencing ({WES}) for cancer patients.},
journal = {npj precision oncology},
volume = {7},
number = {1},
issn = {2397-768X},
address = {[London]},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-02131},
pages = {106},
year = {2023},
note = {#EA:B340#},
abstract = {A growing number of druggable targets and national
initiatives for precision oncology necessitate broad genomic
profiling for many cancer patients. Whole exome sequencing
(WES) offers unbiased analysis of the entire coding
sequence, segmentation-based detection of copy number
alterations (CNAs), and accurate determination of complex
biomarkers including tumor mutational burden (TMB),
homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), and
microsatellite instability (MSI). To assess the
inter-institution variability of clinical WES, we performed
a comparative pilot study between German Centers of
Personalized Medicine (ZPMs) from five participating
institutions. Tumor and matched normal DNA from 30 patients
were analyzed using custom sequencing protocols and
bioinformatic pipelines. Calling of somatic variants was
highly concordant with a positive percentage agreement (PPA)
between 91 and $95\%$ and a positive predictive value (PPV)
between 82 and $95\%$ compared with a three-institution
consensus and full agreement for 16 of 17 druggable targets.
Explanations for deviations included low VAF or coverage,
differing annotations, and different filter protocols. CNAs
showed overall agreement in $76\%$ for the genomic sequence
with high wet-lab variability. Complex biomarkers correlated
strongly between institutions (HRD: 0.79-1, TMB: 0.97-0.99)
and all institutions agreed on microsatellite instability.
This study will contribute to the development of quality
control frameworks for comprehensive genomic profiling and
sheds light onto parameters that require stringent
standardization.},
cin = {B340 / HD01 / FR01 / MU01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)B340-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)FR01-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)MU01-20160331},
pnm = {312 - Funktionelle und strukturelle Genomforschung
(POF4-312)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-312},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37864096},
pmc = {pmc:PMC10589320},
doi = {10.1038/s41698-023-00457-x},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/284931},
}