Abstract
Background
Choosing the specimen type is the first step of the pre-analytical process. Previous reports suggested plasma as the optimal specimen for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis. However, head-to-head comparisons between plasma and serum using platforms with high analytical sensitivity, such as droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR), are limited, and several recent studies have supported the clinical utility of serum-derived ctDNA. This study aimed to compare the DNA profiles isolated from plasma and serum, characterize the effects of the differences between specimens on ctDNA measurement, and determine the major contributors to these differences.
Methods
We isolated cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from 119 matched plasma/serum samples from cancer patients and analyzed the cfDNA profiles by DNA fragment sizing. We then assessed KRAS mutations in ctDNA from matched plasma/serum using ddPCR.
Results
The amount of large DNA fragments was increased in serum, whereas that of cfDNA fragments (<800 bp) was similar in both specimens. ctDNA was less frequently detected in serum, and the KRAS-mutated fraction in serum was significantly lower than that in plasma. The differences in ctDNA fractions between the two specimen types correlated well with the amount of large DNA fragments and white blood cell and neutrophil counts.
Conclusions
Our results provided detailed insights into the differences between plasma and serum using DNA fragment sizing and ddPCR, potentially contributing to ctDNA analysis standardization. Our study also suggested that using plasma minimizes the dilution of tumor-derived DNA and optimizes the sensitivity of ctDNA analysis. So, plasma should be the preferred specimen type.
Funding source: Hallym University
Award Identifier / Grant number: HURF-2018-01
Funding statement: This work was supported by the Hallym University Research Fund (HURF-2018-01).
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of the submitted manuscript and have approved its submission.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Heitzer E, Ulz P, Geigl JB. Circulating tumor DNA as a liquid biopsy for cancer. Clin Chem 2015;61:112–23.10.1373/clinchem.2014.222679Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Cohen JD, Li L, Wang Y, Thoburn C, Afsari B, Danilova L, et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science 2018;359:926–30.10.1126/science.aar3247Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Demuth C, Spindler KG, Johansen JS, Pallisgaard N, Nielsen D, Hogdall E, et al. Measuring KRAS mutations in circulating tumor DNA by droplet digital PCR and next-generation sequencing. Transl Oncol 2018;11:1220–4.10.1016/j.tranon.2018.07.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Merker JD, Oxnard GR, Compton C, Diehn M, Hurley P, Lazar AJ, et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists joint review. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1631–41.10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8671Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Meddeb R, Pisareva E, Thierry AR. Guidelines for the preanalytical conditions for analyzing circulating cell-free DNA. Clin Chem 2019;65:623–33.10.1373/clinchem.2018.298323Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Thierry AR, Mouliere F, Gongora C, Ollier J, Robert B, Ychou M, et al. Origin and quantification of circulating DNA in mice with human colorectal cancer xenografts. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38:6159–75.10.1093/nar/gkq421Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Lee TH, Montalvo L, Chrebtow V, Busch MP. Quantitation of genomic DNA in plasma and serum samples: higher concentrations of genomic DNA found in serum than in plasma. Transfusion 2001;41:276–82.10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41020276.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Plebani M, Banfi G, Bernardini S, Bondanini F, Conti L, Dorizzi R, et al. Serum or plasma? An old question looking for new answers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:178–87.10.1515/cclm-2019-0719Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Soliman SE, Alhanafy AM, Habib MS, Hagag M, Ibrahem RA. Serum circulating cell free DNA as potential diagnostic and prognosticbiomarker in non small cell lung cancer. Biochem Biophys Rep 2018;15:45–51.10.1016/j.bbrep.2018.06.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Nakano Y, Kitago M, Matsuda S, Nakamura Y, Fujita Y, Imai S, et al. KRAS mutations in cell-free DNA from preoperative and postoperative sera as a pancreatic cancer marker: a retrospective study. Br J Cancer 2018;118:662–9.10.1038/bjc.2017.479Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Appelt AL, Andersen RF, Lindebjerg J, Jakobsen A. Prognostic value of serum NPY hypermethylation in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Oncol 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000609. [Epub ahead of print].10.1097/COC.0000000000000609Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Park JL, Kim HJ, Choi BY, Lee HC, Jang HR, Song KS, et al. Quantitative analysis of cell-free DNA in the plasma of gastric cancer patients. Oncol Lett 2012;3:921–6.Search in Google Scholar
13. Taback B, O’Day SJ, Hoon DS. Quantification of circulating DNA in the plasma and serum of cancer patients. Ann NY Acad Sci 2004;1022:17–24.10.1196/annals.1318.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Thijssen MA, Swinkels DW, Ruers TJ, de Kok JB. Difference between free circulating plasma and serum DNA in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Anticancer Res 2002;22:421–5.Search in Google Scholar
15. Heitzer E, Speicher MR. One size does not fit all: size-based plasma DNA diagnostics. Sci Transl Med 2018;10:eaav3873.10.1126/scitranslmed.aav3873Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Ulz P, Auer M, Heitzer E. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in the blood of cancer patients: an important tool in cancer chemoprevention. Methods Mol Biol 2016;1379:45–68.10.1007/978-1-4939-3191-0_5Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Wong FC, Sun K, Jiang P, Cheng YK, Chan KC, Leung TY, et al. Cell-free DNA in maternal plasma and serum: a comparison of quantity, quality and tissue origin using genomic and epigenomic approaches. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1379–86.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.09.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Goldmann O, Medina E. The expanding world of extracellular traps: not only neutrophils but much more. Front Immunol 2013;3:420.10.3389/fimmu.2012.00420Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Zinkova A, Brynychova I, Svacina A, Jirkovska M, Korabecna M. Cell-free DNA from human plasma and serum differs in content of telomeric sequences and its ability to promote immune response. Sci Rep 2017;7:2591.10.1038/s41598-017-02905-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
20. Yu Z, Kastenmuller G, He Y, Belcredi P, Moller G, Prehn C, et al. Differences between human plasma and serum metabolite profiles. PLoS One 2011;6:e21230.10.1371/journal.pone.0021230Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. Faraldi M, Gomarasca M, Banfi G, Lombardi G. Free circulating miRNAs measurement in clinical settings: the still unsolved issue of the normalization. Adv Clin Chem 2018;87:113–39.10.1016/bs.acc.2018.07.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Morgan SR, Whiteley J, Donald E, Smith J, Eisenberg MT, Kallam E, et al. Comparison of KRAS mutation assessment in tumor DNA and circulating free DNA in plasma and serum samples. Clin Med Insights Pathol 2012;5:15–22.10.4137/CPath.S8798Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Lee JS, Park SS, Lee YK, Norton JA, Jeffrey SS. Liquid biopsy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: current status of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Mol Oncol 2019;13:1623–50.10.1002/1878-0261.12537Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
24. Gorgannezhad L, Umer M, Islam MN, Nguyen NT, Shiddiky MJ. Circulating tumor DNA and liquid biopsy: opportunities, challenges, and recent advances in detection technologies. Lab Chip 2018;18:1174–96.10.1039/C8LC00100FSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
