Journal of Personalized Medicine (Nov 2020)

Helpful Criteria When Implementing NGS Panels in Childhood Lymphoblastic Leukemia

  • Nerea Vega-Garcia,
  • Rocío Benito,
  • Elena Esperanza-Cebollada,
  • Marta Llop,
  • Cristina Robledo,
  • Clara Vicente-Garcés,
  • Javier Alonso,
  • Eva Barragán,
  • Guerau Fernández,
  • Jesús M. Hernández-Sánchez,
  • Marta Martín-Izquierdo,
  • Joan Maynou,
  • Alfredo Minguela,
  • Adrián Montaño,
  • Margarita Ortega,
  • Montserrat Torrebadell,
  • José Cervera,
  • Joaquín Sánchez,
  • Antonio Jiménez-Velasco,
  • Susana Riesco,
  • Jesús M. Hernández-Rivas,
  • Álvaro Lassaletta,
  • José María Fernández,
  • Susana Rives,
  • José Luis Dapena,
  • Manuel Ramírez,
  • Mireia Camós,
  • on behalf of the Group of Leukemia of the Spanish Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (SEHOP)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10040244
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 4
p. 244

Abstract

Read online

The development of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has provided useful diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for individualized management of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) patients. Consequently, NGS is rapidly being established in clinical practice. However, the technology’s complexity, bioinformatics analysis, and the different available options difficult a broad consensus between different laboratories in its daily routine introduction. This collaborative study among Spanish centers was aimed to assess the feasibility, pros, and cons of our customized panel and other commercial alternatives of NGS-targeted approaches. The custom panel was tested in three different sequencing centers. We used the same samples to assess other commercial panels (OncomineTM Childhood Cancer Research Assay; Archer®FusionPlex® ALL, and Human Comprehensive Cancer Panel GeneRead Panel v2®). Overall, the panels showed a good performance in different centers and platforms, but each NGS approach presented some issues, as well as pros and cons. Moreover, a previous consensus on the analysis and reporting following international guidelines would be preferable to improve the concordance in results among centers. Our study shows the challenges posed by NGS methodology and the need to consider several aspects of the chosen NGS-targeted approach and reach a consensus before implementing it in daily practice.

Keywords