High-Concordance Validation of Droplet Digital PCR and Next-Generation Sequencing for EGFR Mutation Detection Across Diverse Biospecimens in a Large-scale NSCLC Cohort Study
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Backgrounds
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) are both established methods for detecting EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, comprehensive validation of their concordance in mutation detection and variant allele frequency (VAF) quantification across heterogeneous sample types remains limited. Inconsistent results from different sample types (e.g., cfDNA, FFPE) pose a significant challenge to clinical decisions. This is particularly critical for advanced NSCLC patients, who often rely on liquid biopsy, yet the concordance between liquid and tissue-based testing lacks validation in large-scale studies. Another issue in clinical practice is that many tumor samples are limited in quantity, making it difficult to meet testing requirements. Therefore, it is worth exploring whether pre-capture NGS libraries can serve as substitutes for original DNA.
Methods
In this study, we first developed three assays to detect EGFR L858R, exon 19 deletions (Ex19del) and T790M, respectively using ddPCR platform. Their Limit of Detection (LOD) could reach 0.01% at 100 ng of input DNA. Subsequently, we conducted a large retrospective clinical study to systematically compare the detection performance of ddPCR and NGS across three mutation types using approximately 1,000 EGFR-positive samples, including cell-free DNA (cfDNA), pre-capture NGS libraries of cfDNA (cfDNA-prePCR), FFPE-derived DNA (ffpeDNA), pre-capture NGS libraries of FFPE-derived DNA (ffpeDNA-prePCR), fresh tumor tissue DNA (ttDNA), pre-capture NGS libraries of ttDNA (ttDNA-prePCR), pleural effusion supernatants DNA (peDNA), and pre-capture NGS libraries of peDNA (peDNA-prePCR). They were analyzed for detection concordance and VAF correlation. Especially, we made comparisons of the tumor DNA, including ctDNA and tumor tissue DNA, with their paired pre-capture NGS library.
Results
Key findings demonstrated excellent overall agreement between NGS and ddPCR. The mutation detection concordance rates were 98.72% (overall), with subtype-specific rates of 98.93% (L858R), 99.23% (Ex19del), and 97.14% (T790M). VAF measurements between ddPCR and NGS showed exceptional correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.975, P<0.001). Notably, pre-capture NGS libraries showed remarkable VAF concordance with their source materials (0.993 for cfDNA libraries vs cfDNA; 0.998 for tumor tissue libraries vs tumor DNA with EGFR L858R; 0.991 for tumor tissue libraries vs tumor DNA with EGFR Ex19del).
Conclusions
NGS and ddPCR demonstrate high concordance in EGFR mutation detection and VAF quantification, supporting their complementary roles in clinical testing. Using pre-capture libraries as an alternative to source samples can avoid repeat biopsies and enables subsequent testing for patients with inadequate FFPE sample quantity. These findings establish an evidence base for integrated diagnostic paradigms leveraging NGS’s multiplexing power and ddPCR’s sensitivity.
