The insufficient standardization of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) still limits its implementation in clinical practice, with the correct detection of mutations at low variant allele frequencies (VAF) facing particular challenges. We address here the standardization of sequencing coverage depth in order to minimize the probability of false positive and false negative results, the latter being underestimated in clinical NGS. There is currently no consensus on the minimum coverage depth, and so each laboratory has to set its own parameters. To assist laboratories with the determination of the minimum coverage parameters, we provide here a user-friendly coverage calculator. Using the sequencing error only, we recommend a minimum depth of coverage of 1,650 together with a threshold of at least 30 mutated reads for a targeted NGS mutation analysis of ≥3% VAF, based on the binomial probability distribution. Moreover, our calculator also allows adding assay-specific errors occurring during DNA processing and library preparation, thus calculating with an overall error of a specific NGS assay. The estimation of correct coverage depth is recommended as a starting point when assessing thresholds of NGS assay. Our study also points to the need for guidance regarding the minimum technical requirements, which based on our experience should include the limit of detection (LOD), overall NGS assay error, input, source and quality of DNA, coverage depth, number of variant supporting reads, and total number of target reads covering variant region. Further studies are needed to define the minimum technical requirements and its reporting in diagnostic NGS.

Department of Computer Science Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Technical University of Ostrava Ostrava Czechia

Department of Hemato Oncology Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc Czechia

Department of Immunology Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc Czechia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Jennings LJ, Arcila ME, Corless C, Kamel-Reid S, Lubin IM, Pfeifer J, et al. . Guidelines for validation of next-generation sequencing-based oncology panels: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. (2017) 19:341–65. 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.01.011 PubMed DOI PMC

D'Haene N, Le Mercier M, De Neve N, Blanchard O, Delaunoy M, El Housni H, et al. . Clinical validation of targeted next generation sequencing for Colon and Lung cancers. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0138245. 10.1371/journal.pone.0138245 PubMed DOI PMC

Deans ZC, Costa JL, Cree I, Dequeker E, Edsjo A, Henderson S, et al. . Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN path ASBL. Virchows Arch. (2017) 470:5–20. 10.1007/s00428-016-2025-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Ivanov M, Laktionov K, Breder V, Chernenko P, Novikova E, Telysheva E, et al. . Towards standardization of next-generation sequencing of FFPE samples for clinical oncology: intrinsic obstacles and possible solutions. J Transl Med. (2017) 15:22. 10.1186/s12967-017-1125-8 PubMed DOI PMC

Bacher U, Shumilov E, Flach J, Porret N, Joncourt R, Wiedemann G, et al. . Challenges in the introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for diagnostics of myeloid malignancies into clinical routine use. Blood Cancer J. (2018) 8:113. 10.1038/s41408-018-0148-6 PubMed DOI PMC

Merker JD, Devereaux K, Iafrate AJ, Kamel-Reid S, Kim AS, Moncur JT, et al. . Proficiency testing of standardized samples shows very high interlaboratory agreement for clinical next-generation sequencing-based oncology assays Arch Pathol Lab Med. (2019) 143:463–71. 10.5858/arpa.2018-0336-CP PubMed DOI PMC

Rossi D, Khiabanian H, Spina V, Ciardullo C, Bruscaggin A, Fama R, et al. . Clinical impact of small TP53 mutated subclones in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. (2014) 123:2139–47. 10.1182/blood-2013-11-539726 PubMed DOI PMC

Brieghel C, Kinalis S, Yde CW, Schmidt AY, Jonson L, Andersen MA, et al. . Deep targeted sequencing of TP53 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: clinical impact at diagnosis and at time of treatment. Haematologica. (2019) 104:789–96. 10.3324/haematol.2018.195818 PubMed DOI PMC

Campo E, Cymbalista F, Ghia P, Jager U, Pospisilova S, Rosenquist R, et al. . TP53 aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: an overview of the clinical implications of improved diagnostics. Haematologica. (2018) 103:1956–68. 10.3324/haematol.2018.187583 PubMed DOI PMC

Malcikova J, Tausch E, Rossi D, Sutton LA, Soussi T, Zenz T, et al. . ERIC recommendations for TP53 mutation analysis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia-update on methodological approaches and results interpretation. Leukemia. (2018) 32:1070–80. 10.1038/s41375-017-0007-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Salk JJ, Schmitt MW, Loeb LA. Enhancing the accuracy of next-generation sequencing for detecting rare and subclonal mutations. Nat Rev Genet. (2018) 19:269–85. 10.1038/nrg.2017.117 PubMed DOI PMC

Quail MA, Smith M, Coupland P, Otto TD, Harris SR, Connor TR, et al. . A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion Torrent, Pacific Biosciences and Illumina MiSeq sequencers. BMC Genomics. (2012) 13:341. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-341 PubMed DOI PMC

Tan G, Opitz L, Schlapbach R, Rehrauer H. Long fragments achieve lower base quality in Illumina paired-end sequencing. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:2856. 10.1038/s41598-019-39076-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Obr A, Prochazka V, Jirkuvova A, Urbankova H, Kriegova E, Schneiderova P, et al. . TP53 mutation and complex karyotype portends a dismal prognosis in patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. (2018) 18:762–8. 10.1016/j.clml.2018.07.282 PubMed DOI

Turcsanyi P, Kriegova E, Kudelka M, Radvansky M, Kruzova L, Urbanova R, et al. . Improving risk-stratification of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia using multivariate patient similarity networks. Leuk Res. (2019) 79:60–8. 10.1016/j.leukres.2019.02.005 PubMed DOI

Shin HT, Choi YL, Yun JW, Kim N, Kim SY, Jeon HJ, et al. . Prevalence and detection of low-allele-fraction variants in clinical cancer samples. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:1377. 10.1038/s41467-017-01470-y PubMed DOI PMC

Ma X, Shao Y, Tian L, Flasch DA, Mulder HL, Edmonson MN, et al. . Analysis of error profiles in deep next-generation sequencing data. Genome Biol. (2019) 20:50. 10.1186/s13059-019-1659-6 PubMed DOI PMC

Smith T, Heger A, Sudbery I. UMI-tools: modeling sequencing errors in Unique Molecular Identifiers to improve quantification accuracy. Genome Res. (2017) 27:491–9. 10.1101/gr.209601.116 PubMed DOI PMC

McDonough SJ, Bhagwate A, Sun Z, Wang C, Zschunke M, Gorman JA, et al. . Use of FFPE-derived DNA in next generation sequencing: DNA extraction methods. PLoS ONE. (2019) 14:e0211400. 10.1371/journal.pone.0211400 PubMed DOI PMC

Ascierto PA, Bifulco C, Palmieri G, Peters S, Sidiropoulos N. Pre-analytic variables and tissue stewardship for reliable next-generation sequencing (NGS) clinical analysis. J Mol Diagn. (2019)21:756–67. 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2019.05.004 PubMed DOI

ERIC recommendations for TP53 mutation analysis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia-2024 update

Long-term environmental metal exposure is associated with hypomethylation of CpG sites in NFKB1 and other genes related to oncogenesis

Towards a Better Characterisation of Leukemic Cells in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: Cell-Size Heterogeneity Reflects Their Activation Status and Migratory Abilities

DSP rs2076295 variants influence nintedanib and pirfenidone outcomes in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a pilot study

Deciphering the complex circulating immune cell microenvironment in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia using patient similarity networks

Concurrent TP53 and CDKN2A Gene Aberrations in Newly Diagnosed Mantle Cell Lymphoma Correlate with Chemoresistance and Call for Innovative Upfront Therapy

Resistance-Associated Mutations in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated With Novel Agents