Background Exosomes are nanovesicles released by cells that can be detected in blood. Exosomes contain several molecules, such as cytokines that have potential utility as disease biomarkers. The aim of the present work is to compare six different commercial kits suitable for the clinical laboratory in relation to the efficiency and purity of exosome isolation, and their effect in subsequent cytokines analysis. Methods Serum exosomes were obtained from 10 volunteers using six commercial kits: exoEasy, ExoQuick, Exo-spin, ME kit, ExoQuick Plus and Exo-Flow. Exosome concentrations and size distributions were quantified by nanoparticle tracking analysis. Exosome markers CD63, CD9 and TSG101 were determined by Western blot. ApoB and albumin were measured using nephelometry. S100A9, CXCL5 and CXCL12 were measured using a Luminex assay. Results The concentration of particles obtained between different kits varied by a factor of 100. There was no correlation in particle concentrations extracted between different kits, except between ExoQuick and Exo-Flow. The highest exosome purity was achieved with ExoQuick Plus and exoEasy, while the lowest were achieved with ME and ExoQuick. Albumin was present in all exosome extracts analyzed and ApoB in all except those extracted with Exo-Flow and ME. Cytokine detection varied depending on the purification kit used and there was no correlation in cytokine concentrations between samples obtained with different kits. Conclusions Both the sample and the type of commercial kit used affect the efficiency and purity of exosome isolation. In addition, the exosome purification method deeply affects the capability to detect and quantify cytokines.

No abstract

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutational testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is usually performed in tumor tissue, although cfDNA (cell-free DNA) could be an alternative. We evaluated EGFR mutations in cfDNA as a complementary tool in patients, who had already known EGFR mutations in tumor tissue and were treated with either EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or chemotherapy. We obtained plasma samples from 21 advanced NSCLC patients with known EGFR tumor mutations, before and during therapy with EGFR-TKIs and/or chemotherapy. cfDNA was isolated and EGFR mutations were analyzed with the multiple targeted cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. EGFR mutations were detected at baseline in cfDNA from 57% of patients. The semiquantitative index (SQI) significantly decreased from the baseline (median=11, IQR=9.5-13) to the best response (median=0, IQR=0-0, p<0.01), followed by a significant increase at progression (median=11, IQR=11-15, p<0.01) in patients treated with either EGFR-TKIs or chemotherapy. The SQI obtained with the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 did not correlate with the concentration in copies/mL determined by droplet digital PCR. Resistance mutation p.T790M was observed at progression in patients with either type of treatment. In conclusion, cfDNA multiple targeted EGFR mutation analysis is useful for treatment monitoring in tissue of EGFR-positive NSCLC patients independently of the drug received.

AbstractBackgroundGenomic alterations studies in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) have increasing clinical use in oncology. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology provides the most complete mutational analysis, but nowadays limited data are available related to the comparison of results reported by different platforms. Here we compare two NGS panels for cfDNA: Oncomine™ Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific), suitable for clinical laboratories, and Guardant360® (GuardantHealth), with more genes targeted but only available in an outsourcing laboratory.MethodsPeripheral blood was obtained from 16 advanced cancer patients in which Guardant360® (G360) was requested as part of their clinical assistance. Blood samples were sent to be analyzed with G360 panel, and an additional blood sample was drawn to obtain and analyze cfDNA with Oncomine™ Pan-Cancer (OM) panel in an Ion GeneStudio S5™ System.ResultscfDNA analysis globally rendered 101 mutations. Regarding the 55/101 mutations claimed to be included by manufacturers in both panels, 17 mutations were reported only by G360, 10 only by OM and 28 by both. In those coincident cases, there was a high correlation between the variant allele fractions (VAFs) calculated with each panel (r = 0.979, p < 0.01). Regarding the six actionable mutations with an FDA-approved therapy reported by G360, one was missed with OM. Also, 12 mutations with clinical trials available were reported by G360 but not by OM.ConclusionsIn summary, G360 and OM can produce different mutational profile in the same sample, even in genes included in both panels, which is especially important if these mutations are potentially druggable.

No abstract