2022Expert Review of Molecular DiagnosticsRequires access

Determining the accuracy of next generation sequencing based copy number variation analysis in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Nihat Buğra Ağaoğlu, Busra Unal, Özlem Akgün Doğan, Payam Zolfagharian, Pari Sharifli, Aylin Karakurt, Burak Can Senay, Tugba Kizilboga, Jale Yıldız, Gizem Dinler Doğanay, Levent Doğanay

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

Background Copy number variations (CNVs) are commonly associated with malignancies, including hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Next generation sequencing (NGS) provides solutions for CNV detection in a single run. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of CNV detection by NGS analyzing tool against Multiplex Ligation Dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA).Research design and methods In total, 1276 cases were studied by targeted NGS panels and 691 cases (61 calls in 58 NGS-CNV positive and 633 NGS-CNV negative cases) were validated by MLPA.Results Twenty-eight (46%) NGS-CNV positive calls were consistent, whereas 33 (54%) calls showed discordance with MLPA. Two cases were detected as SNV by the NGS and CNV by the MLPA analysis. In total, 2% of the cases showed an MLPA confirmed CNV region in BRCA1/2. The results of this study showed that despite the high false positive call rate of the NGS-CNV algorithm, there were no false negative calls. The cases that were determined to be negative by the NGS and positive by the MLPA were actually carrying SNVs that were located on the MLPA probe binding sites.Conclusion The diagnostic performance of NGS-CNV analysis is promising; however, the need for confirmation by different methods remains.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background Copy number variations (CNVs) are commonly associated with malignancies, including hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Next generation sequencing (NGS) provides solutions for CNV detection in a single run. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of CNV detection by NGS analyzing tool against Multiplex Ligation Dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA).Research design and methods In total, 1276 cases were studied by targeted NGS panels and 691 cases (61 calls in 58 NGS-CNV positive and 633 NGS-CNV negative cases) were validated by MLPA.Results Twenty-eight (46%) NGS-CNV positive calls were consistent, whereas 33 (54%) calls showed discordance with MLPA. Two cases were detected as SNV by the NGS and CNV by the MLPA analysis. In total, 2% of the cases showed an MLPA confirmed CNV region in BRCA1/2. The results of this study showed that despite the high false positive call rate of the NGS-CNV algorithm, there were no false negative calls. The cases that were determined to be negative by the NGS and positive by the MLPA were actually carrying SNVs that were located on the MLPA probe binding sites.Conclusion The diagnostic performance of NGS-CNV analysis is promising; however, the need for confirmation by different methods remains.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background Copy number variations (CNVs) are commonly associated with malignancies, including hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Next generation sequencing (NGS) provides solutions for CNV detection in a single run. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of CNV detection by NGS analyzing tool against Multiplex Ligation Dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA).Research design and methods In total, 1276 cases were studied by targeted NGS panels and 691 cases (61 calls in 58 NGS-CNV positive and 633 NGS-CNV negative cases) were validated by MLPA.Results Twenty-eight (46%) NGS-CNV positive calls were consistent, whereas 33 (54%) calls showed discordance with MLPA. Two cases were detected as SNV by the NGS and CNV by the MLPA analysis. In total, 2% of the cases showed an MLPA confirmed CNV region in BRCA1/2. The results of this study showed that despite the high false positive call rate of the NGS-CNV algorithm, there were no false negative calls. The cases that were determined to be negative by the NGS and positive by the MLPA were actually carrying SNVs that were located on the MLPA probe binding sites.Conclusion The diagnostic performance of NGS-CNV analysis is promising; however, the need for confirmation by different methods remains.

Key concepts: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, Copy-number variation, Multiplex, Medicine, Breast cancer, Oncology, Biology, Computational biology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Determining the accuracy of next generation sequencing based copy number variation analysis in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer — Research Paper | ScholarLens