Target-Enhanced Whole-Genome Sequencing Shows Clinical Validity Equivalent to Commercially Available Targeted Oncology Panel

Sangmoon Lee; Jin Roh; Jun Sung Park; Islam Oguz Tuncay; Wonchul Lee; Jung-Ah Kim; Brian Baek-Lok Oh; Jong-Yeon Shin; Jeong Seok Lee; Young Seok Ju; Ryul Kim; Seongyeol Park; Jaemo Koo; Hansol Park; Joonoh Lim; Erin Connolly-Strong; Tae-Hwan Kim; Yong Won Choi; Mi Sun Ahn; Hyun Woo Lee; Seokhwi Kim; Jang-Hee Kim; Minsuk Kwon

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.114

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 57(2); 2025 > Article

Original Article General Target-Enhanced Whole-Genome Sequencing Shows Clinical Validity Equivalent to Commercially Available Targeted Oncology Panel: Sangmoon Lee¹, Jin Roh², Jun Sung Park³, Islam Oguz Tuncay¹, Wonchul Lee¹, Jung-Ah Kim¹, Brian Baek-Lok Oh¹, Jong-Yeon Shin¹, Jeong Seok Lee¹, Young Seok Ju¹, Ryul Kim¹, Seongyeol Park¹, Jaemo Koo¹, Hansol Park¹, Joonoh Lim¹, Erin Connolly-Strong¹, Tae-Hwan Kim⁴, Yong Won Choi⁴, Mi Sun Ahn⁴, Hyun Woo Lee⁴, Seokhwi Kim², Jang-Hee Kim², Minsuk Kwon^4,5,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2025;57(2):350-361.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.114
Published online: September 19, 2024

¹Inocras Inc., San Diego, CA, USA

²Department of Pathology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

⁴Department of Hematology-Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

⁵Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Minsuk Kwon, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3410-1764 E-mail: minsuk.dr.kwon@samsung.com

*Sangmoon Lee and Jin Roh contributed equally to this work.

• Received: February 3, 2024 • Accepted: September 12, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1,573 Views
189 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS.
Materials and Methods
This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches.
Results
TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making.
Conclusion
TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.
Key words: Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Mutation, Precision medicine, Whole genome sequencing

Introduction

Cancer constitutes a substantial clinical burden worldwide, accompanied by the considerable cost of oncological therapies. In 2020, a staggering 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and nearly 10.0 million cancer-related deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) were reported globally [1]. In the United States alone, it was estimated that in 2023, there would be ~2 million new cancer diagnoses and a projected 610K cancer-related deaths [2]. This escalating prevalence of cancer underscores an expanding, unmet demand for genomic testing—a pivotal tool empowering healthcare providers to adopt a more precise and tailored approach to patient care.

In the pursuit of personalized medicine within oncology, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a valuable clinical asset. Recent decades of sequencing endeavors have unequivocally established cancer as predominantly driven by genetic factors [3]. The disease manifests through a complex interplay of inherited germline mutations and acquired somatic mutations, which can confer a survival advantage while evading immune surveillance [4]. Through harnessing genomic and molecular profiling technologies to customize treatments based on a patient’s specific tumor alterations, personalized medicine has demonstrated its potential [5-7]. It enhances survival rates and overall quality of life and yields favorable economic outcomes compared to single-gene tests [8,9]. Despite these promising advantages, the adoption of tumor profiling remains limited, with only a fraction of eligible patients benefiting from genomic testing [8,10]. Perhaps this underutilization is linked to the existing mainstream tests that often fall short of comprehensively covering all clinically relevant cancer-related alterations. Conventional targeted panel sequencing (TPS) approaches, for instance, require some prior diagnostic hypotheses driven by previous clinical and/or genomic data, limiting their clinical utility [4,11]. Additionally, due to validation cycles required for updating panel tests, they may struggle to address emerging biomarkers promptly [10]. These constraints underscore the pressing need for a comprehensive examination of a patient’s genome.

The rapid evolution of sequencing technologies, coupled with substantial cost reductions, has ushered in the era of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) through whole-genome sequencing (WGS). WGS of tumor and matched normal tissues offers a comprehensive view of germline and somatic variants, including point mutations, copy number alterations, and structural rearrangements, delivering invaluable insights for precision oncology and personalized treatment strategies [12]. The comprehensive catalog of mutations further allows more accurate quality control of genome sequences and investigating patterns of mutations, known as “mutational signatures” [13]. As technology advances and costs decline, integrating WGS into routine comprehensive genomic profiling becomes increasingly indispensable to unlock the full potential of genomic medicine in cancer. Nonetheless, concerns have arisen regarding WGS’s sensitivity in detecting driver variants due to lower sequencing depth. Challenges also arise from low tumor cell fraction (TCF) and suboptimal DNA quality from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, potentially leading to the oversight of low allelic fraction variants by chance [14].

In response to these challenges, a forward-thinking approach has been introduced: target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS). Here, on top of the WGS backbone (40×), > 500 top key biomarker genes are more deeply explored by enrichments using pools of WGS libraries (Fig. 1). This unique amalgamation ensures greater confidence that even critical biomarkers with low variant allele fractions (VAFs) will not go undetected. This report presents the findings of the TE-WGS approach to cancer genomic profiling in comparison with TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) in real-world clinical settings.

Materials and Methods

1. Study design

This prospective observational study included adult participants with diverse cancer types and stages, conducted at Ajou University Hospital from September 2022 to March 2023 (registered to Clinical Research Information Service No. KCT0007707). Each sample underwent diagnosis and tumor content assessment by a pathologist. Routine cancer molecular profiling was performed on all patients using TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) (Illumina Inc.). Patients with residual tumor DNA after TSO500 testing provided peripheral blood samples for DNA extraction, enabling additional tumor-normal testing using TE-WGS conducted by CancerVision, a proprietary CGP product developed by Inocras Inc. [15]. A total of 49 tumor-normal pairs were included in the study analysis (Fig. 2).

2. DNA extraction

FFPE tumor DNA extraction was performed by the pathology laboratory at Ajou University Hospital using AllPrep DNA/RNA FFPE kit (Qiagen). Peripheral blood DNAs were extracted using Allprep DNA/RNA kits (Qiagen) by Inocras Inc.

3. Targeted panel

Illumina’s TSO500 NGS library preparation adhered to the manufacturer’s instructions, with a DNA target size of 1.28 Mb to enrich 523 genes. Sequencing was executed on the NextSeq 550 platform (Illumina Inc.), and data analysis occurred via TruSight Oncology 500 Local App (pipeline ver. 2.2, Illumina Inc.) on an on-premise server at Ajou University Hospital, utilizing the GRCh37 reference genome. Reported findings encompassed single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertions and deletions with a VAF ≥ 5%, copy number variations (CNVs) with ≥ 4 (gain) and < 1 (loss), and translocations supported by ≥ 5 translocation reads. Tier 1 or 2 SNVs and indels with VAF below 5% were reported if they possessed significant clinical implications or in the context of chemotherapy where the TCF might be diminished.

Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is the number of eligible somatic mutations per Mb. The eligible SNVs and indels need to meet the following criteria: (1) in coding regions, (2) in high-confidence regions, (3) with ≥ 50× coverage, and (4) with ≥ 5% VAF. For microsatellite instability (MSI), TSO500 analyzed 130 MSI marker sites to calculate a quantitative score (see Illumina’s application note 1170-2018-009-B).

4. Target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing

Residual tumor DNA from TSO500 testing by Ajou University Hospital and newly extracted peripheral blood DNA from Inocras Inc. were utilized to prepare paired tumor-normal sequencing libraries. Genome sequencing, analysis, and interpretation for TE-WGS were performed using the CancerVision system [15]. DNA libraries were created with TruSeq Nano Library Prep Kits (Illumina Inc.) and sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq6000 platform (Illumina Inc.) with average depths of coverage of 40x for tumor samples and 20× for blood samples for WGS.

To enrich relevant targets, we selected 526 genes, which included all TSO500 genes along with SLC7A8, STT3A, and ZNF2, based on their established associations with the specific cancer type and their potential to guide clinical decision-making (clinical actionability). We then created a target bed file encompassing the coding exons of all selected genes and the promoter regions of TERT, resulting in a total of 6,746 targets with a combined size of 2.76 Mb. xGen Custom Hybridization Probes (IDT, Inc.) were designed based on this target bed file. Tumor DNA libraries were enriched using these probes, followed by sequencing on the Illumina NovaSeq6000 platform to achieve an average depth of coverage of 500×.

5. Bioinformatic analysis TE-WGS data

The obtained sequences were aligned to the human reference genome (GRCh38) using the BWA-MEM v1.0.4 [16]. Polymerase chain reaction duplicates were removed using SAMBLASTER v0.1.26 [17]. Germline small variant calling was initially performed using Inocras’ Clinical Laboratory Improvements Act (CLIA)–validated WGS analysis pipeline, which leverages both HaplotypeCaller2–GATK v4.2.0.0 [18] and Strelka2 v2.9.10 [19]. Somatic mutation calling was performed by germline subtraction from tumor mutations utilizing tools’ native function or in-house scripts. Somatic small variant calling was performed using Strelka2 v2.9.10 [19] and Mutect2–GATK v4.2.0.0 [20], and the variants were combined. Structural variations were identified using Manta v1.6.0 [21]. Identified germline and somatic variants were annotated using VEP release 107 [22] and manually inspected and curated using Inocras’ proprietary genome browser. Sequenza-based analysis provided estimates of tumor characteristics, including TCF, tumor cell ploidy, and segmented copy number alteration profiles [23].

Point mutation calling employed stratified cutoffs based on mutation type (hotspot vs. non-hotspot) and sequencing platform (WGS vs. TPS). Hotspots were defined according to loci described in the literature [24]. For hotspot mutations, a minimum VAF of 1% was required in tumor samples analyzed by TPS with at least 100× coverage depth. If TPS depth fell below 100×, the cutoff for WGS applied, requiring both VAF ≥ 1% and at least two variant allele reads. Non-hotspot mutations had stricter cutoffs. In WGS data, they needed VAF ≥ 5% and at least three variant allele reads. If WGS depth was sufficient (≥ 100×), the WGS cutoff mirrored TPS, requiring VAF ≥ 2.5%. However, for shallow TPS (depth < 100×), the non-hotspot cutoff reverted to the more stringent WGS criteria. These cutoffs balanced sensitivity for capturing genuine mutations with specificity to minimize false positives. CNV detection prioritized segmental alterations over arm-level changes. This ensures a high degree of confidence in identifying true amplification events. Biallelic deletions, where both copies of a gene are lost, were identified when the major and minor alleles’ copy numbers were equal to zero.

The TMB was calculated as the sum of SNVs and indels divided by an effective genome size of 2,862,010,428 bp [25]. MSI was assessed using a modified algorithm based on MSIsenssor [26], and the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score was estimated using a refined version of HRDetect, optimized for improved performance in FFPE tissue [27].

Results

1. Demographics

A total of 56 patients diagnosed with solid tumors between September 2022 and March 2023 were initially enrolled in the study. However, seven patients were subsequently excluded from future analysis due to insufficient DNA samples. Thus, a final cohort of 49 patients with available tumor-normal pairs was included in the subsequent analysis (Fig. 2). Among the participants, 31 (63%) were male, while the remaining 18 (37%) were female. The cohort’s median age was 59 years (range, 22 to 86 years). The cohort encompassed diverse tumor types, as detailed in Table 1. Briefly, these tumor types included breast (n=4), colorectal (n=7), pancreatic (n=11), stomach (n=8), and lung cancers (n=4).

2. Coverage depth

The mean depth of coverage for TSO500 was 830.1× (range, 378.5 to 1,035.1). In the TE-WGS approach, cancer whole-genome was sequenced to the mean depth of ~45× (range, 28.4 to 68.5) with enrichment for target genes to 359.8× (range, 84.4 to 896.5). Notably, 93.12% of the targeted regions achieved a sequence depth of 50× in the TE-WGS approach, whereas this value was 98.28% for TSO500 (Fig. 3A).

3. Variants detection

In order to evaluate the TE-WGS performance in variant detection of clinically actionable driver genes, genomic findings from the TSO500 were first considered. In total, 498 unique variants were identified across all samples in TSO500, with complete detection in the TE-WGS methods, accounting for the 100% sensitivity (498/498). The data demonstrated a high correlation of detection of VAF between the TSO500 and TE-WGS methodologies (r=0.978) (Fig. 3B).

Furthermore, among the pool of 498 commonly detected variants identified by both approaches, a notable proportion of 223 variants (44.8%) were discerned within peripheral blood samples through the CLIA-validated WGS (analytical sensitivity for SNV and indel is 99.8% and 99.2%, respectively, and positive predictive value for SNV and indel is 99.3% and 98.7%, respectively, by a separate validation study) [15], suggestive of constitutional variants inherent to the germline. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood through the blood DNA WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants of the tumor tissue. Within the tumor TE-WGS data, the VAFs exhibited a spectrum of 5.0%-90.7% for constitutional variants and 2.1%-91.0% for somatic variants, with a substantial level of overlap. This underscores that the VAF may not be relied upon as a definitive criterion to distinguish germline and somatic variants (Fig. 3B).

4. Tumor cell fraction/copy number analysis

The TSO500 assay does not employ an algorithmic process to calculate TCF; rather, it incorporates estimations provided by pathologists into the final report. In contrast, the TE-WGS approach utilizes a computational algorithm that considers CNVs and allelic balance changes. While there exists a correlation between TCF calculations using the TE-WGS method and pathologists’ estimates (r=0.44), a discernible discrepancy in estimation between the two methodologies is evident. This observed incongruity can be attributed to the well-documented tendency of pathologists to provide higher TCF estimations compared to those derived from the WGS-based approach (Fig. 4A) [28].

The copy number of gene amplifications reported by TSO500 was overall concordant with the TE-WGS (r=0.723, p=4.19e-08) (Fig. 4B). Given that tumor purity determined by pathologists is used to normalize the gene copy number of TSO500, we recalculated the copy number using tumor purity more accurately determined by TE-WGS. As a result, the copy numbers between TSO500 and TE-WGS showed a higher correlation (r=0.842, p=7.24e-11) (Fig. 3C, S1 Fig.). All the tier I and II CNVs from TSO500 were also detected by TE-WGS. In addition, TE-WGS identified six deletions that were not reported by TSO500: four CDKN2A, one TP53, and one BAP1 deletion.

5. Gene fusions analysis

TSO500 identified two fusion events that were actionable by the CKB (Jackson Laboratory). These fusion events were associated with an Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Consensus Recommendation level A or D [29]: CD74::ROS1 in lung adenocarcinoma and TMPRSS2::ERG in prostate cancer. TE-WGS approach reported both fusions from WGS data (Fig. 3D).

6. Genomic instability analysis

TMB: The TSO500 assay estimates TMB by calculating the number of passing eligible variants and dividing it by the size of the targeted coding region covered by the panel. In contrast, the TE-WGS approach employs a germline subtraction method to determine the number of somatic alterations per million base pairs across the entire genome. A TMB value exceeding 10 mutations per megabase (Mb) is classified as ‘high’ (≥ 10 mut/Mb) [30]. TMB scores calculated by TE-WGS exhibited a good correlation with those derived from TSO500 (r=0.89) (Fig. 5A). However, some instances of discordance were observed. Notably, six TSO500-tested tumors classified as TMB-high (12.2%) were categorized as TMB-low (< 10 mutations/Mb) by the TE-WGS approach (Fig. 5B).

MSI: TSO500 relies on stitched reads obtained from tumor samples to determine the MSI status. Unstable microsatellite sites are detected by assessing the shift in the length of a microsatellite site for a tumor sample against a set of normal baseline samples. In contrast, TE-WGS employs a proprietary that incorporates germline sequence subtraction and detects somatic microsatellite changes for MSI estimation. There was a strong correlation between these two methodologies in MSI scoring (r=0.96) (Fig. 5C). The majority of tumors in the cohort were MSI-stable. However, there was one ureter cancer that was identified by TSO500 as MSI-high and confirmed to be MSI-high by TE-WGS. Further, we detected MSH2 (NM_000251.3:c.1043del, p.Gln348ArgfsTer9) somatic mutation, which likely underlies the MSI-high phenotype in the case.

HRD: TSO500 does not include HRD evaluation, and Illumina offers an optional add-on kit for HRD assessment. However, this supplementary kit was not integrated into our study design, thus preventing a direct head-to-head comparison of HRD scoring between the two methodologies. The TE-WGS approach employed a proprietary algorithm dedicated to HRD scoring. Notably, this method effectively discriminated between homologous recombination (HR)–proficient and HR-deficient tumors (Fig. 5D). Four of six HR-deficient tumors harbored germline or somatic mutations in HRD-related genes (BRCA1/2) accompanied by loss of non-mutant allele. While TSO500 did detect BRCA1/2 variants in cases identified by TE-WGS, it did not provide an informative HRD assessment.

7. Mutational signature

WGS is an unbiased approach to profiling mutational signatures [31]. Mutational signature analysis identified tumor samples with HRD, characterized by enrichment of single base substitution (SBS) signature 3 and small insertions and deletions signature 6 (Fig. 6). Mutational signature analysis also identified tumor samples with APOBEC (apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing catalytic polypeptide) mutations, characterized by enrichment of SBS2 and SBS13 signatures (Fig. 6). Identification of the HRD mutational signature suggests that the mutational process is caused by HRD, even if the related genes, such as BRCA1/2, are not found.

Discussion

Cancer remains a formidable challenge in modern medicine despite remarkable advances in treatment modalities such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies. These breakthroughs have ushered in the era of precision medicine, substantially improving survival rates across various cancer types [28]. However, the clinical application of these therapies hinges on the accurate identification of actionable genomic alterations. NGS technologies have demonstrated their clinical utility by enabling the identification of such alterations, facilitating informed decisions regarding approved therapies, clinical trial participation, or the management of rare actionable mutations [32,33].

Nonetheless, a crucial limitation of fixed-panel NGS assays like TSO500 has hindered their ability to keep pace with new discoveries. These panels are inherently constrained by the genomic alterations known at the time of their design. As new biomarkers emerge, these tests quickly become outdated, depriving patients of access to the latest insights that could guide their care. Moreover, the development and validation of updated panels introduce a lag that impedes the timely adoption of emerging biomarkers [11,34,35], necessitating novel approaches.

TE-WGS offers an intriguing solution to this predicament. By combining a deep-read panel with a WGS framework, TE-WGS provides the most comprehensive view of the genomic landscape, unburdened by the constraints of predefined gene panels. This adaptability allows for swift algorithm updates without creating and validating entirely new tests. Additionally, the WGS approach inherently can retrospectively identify emerging biomarkers in previously sequenced patient data, ensuring that patients benefit from the latest discoveries, even after their initial testing. Moreover, the target-enhanced aspect of TE-WGS significantly contributes to overcoming the lower sensitivity associated with critical mutations or genes due to low sequencing depth and potential low TCF in samples. This precision targeting ensures that important genomic regions are thoroughly covered, enhancing the detection sensitivity for key mutations. This feature is particularly valuable in scenarios where conventional sequencing methods may fall short in capturing crucial genetic information, thereby bolstering the reliability of TE-WGS in identifying clinically relevant alterations even in challenging samples.

The clinical utility of targeted genomic panels, encompassing both germline susceptibility and known “actionable” somatic mutations (including TSO500), has been well-documented [35-41]. For some cancer types, TPS is becoming standard practice [39]. This study demonstrated a robust correlation between TSO500 and TE-WGS in detecting SNVs, insertions/deletions (indels), and CNVs. This correlation implies that the clinical utility demonstrated by TSO500 can also be applied to the actionable key biomarker findings reported by the TE-WGS test. Furthermore, TE-WGS extends the actionability seen with TSO500 by reporting the origin (somatic or germline) of actionable biomarkers. Distinguishing between these categories allows for more informed treatment decisions, potentially reducing the risk of exposure to ineffective therapeutic approaches.

In recent years, genomic instability markers have gained attention with the advent of immunotherapy. TMB has emerged as a predictive biomarker for immunogenic neoantigens [6,7]. However, studies have suggested that TMB calculations using tumor-only assays can yield falsely elevated results compared to those determined by germline subtraction methodologies [19]. Furthermore, this discrepancy likely arises from the differential mutation rates between coding and non-coding regions, especially when a small portion of variants are considered. Coding regions, which are more likely to harbor mutations that provide a selective advantage in tumors and are often targeted by sequencing panels, tend to be enriched for mutations compared to non-coding regions [42]. The TE-WGS approach employs a proprietary algorithm informed by germline subtraction and whole genome analysis. While this study showed a good correlation between TSO500 and TE-WGS approaches, instances of discordance were observed, indicating that TE-WGS methodology may potentially reduce exposure to ineffective therapeutic approaches.

Beyond the classical clinical utility of targeted panels, the TE-WGS approach can detect somatic variants arising from specific mutagenic mechanisms or signatures. Each mutagenic source produces a characteristic mutational pattern, and unsupervised learning techniques can decipher signatures associated with distinct etiologies. These signatures, often called “genomic scars”, represent lasting and detectable evidence of environmental or internal genomic damage [13,43]. The most notable and actionable mutational signature currently is the HRD signature. Tumors with mutations in BRCA1/2 are deficient in the homologous recombination repair process, and they exhibit promising responses to PARP inhibitors [44]. The TE-WGS approach allows for bioinformatic integration of known mutational signatures (COSMIC mutational signatures [45]) in a clinical setting, eliminating the need for additional testing for each mutational signature.

Economic studies have shown that NGS panel testing offers cost savings for both Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and commercial payers compared to traditional limited gene testing [34,46,47]. A decision-analytic model comparing BRCA1/2 testing to a seven-gene panel for women with a family history of cancer found the seven-gene panel to be more cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $23,734 and $42,067 per life-year gained [48]. Although parallel germline and somatic testing strategies enhance variant identification [49], they contribute to inefficient spending. The TE-WGS approach provides a cost-effective solution by consolidating germline, somatic, genomic instability, and mutation signature analysis into a single test, streamlining the diagnostic process and reducing overall costs.

In conclusion, TE-WGS emerges as a promising and potent approach in the pursuit of personalized medicine in oncology. It effectively addresses the need for comprehensive profiling while remaining cost-effective, and adaptable to emerging biomarkers.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2024-114_S1_Fig.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

All procedures received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Ajou University Hospital (AJOUIRB-SMP-2022-271). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Lee S, Roh J, Oh BBL, Lee JS, Ju YS, Kwon M.

Collected the data: Lee S, Park JS, Kim TH, Choi YW, Ahn MS, Lee HW, Kim S, Kim JH, Kwon M.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Lee S, Tuncay IO, Lee W, Shin JY, Kim R, Park S, Koo J, Park H, Lim J, Kwon M.

Performed the analysis: Lee S, Kim JA, Connolly-Strong E, Kwon M.

Wrote the paper: Lee S, Kwon M.

Conflict of Interest

M.K. currently holds a consultancy/advisory role for MSD and Inocras Inc., and M.K. has received grant/research funding from Inocras Inc. These affiliations may present potential conflicts of interest related to the submitted manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1F1A1074910). This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HR22C1734, HI23C1589).

Fig. 1.

Overview of target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS). This cartoon depicts TE-WGS, which combines a 40× coverage WGS backbone with a focused exploration of over 500 key biomarker genes. This is achieved through the enrichment of pooled WGS libraries. The illustration highlights TE-WGS’s ability to detect low-level biomarker expressions, enhancing diagnostic precision in personalized oncology.

Fig. 2.

CONSORT diagram depicting patient enrollment and selection. Of the 56 patients enrolled in the study, only 49 met both the eligibility criteria and sample requirements, and thus, 49 patients were included in the analysis. FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; TE-WGS, target-enhanced whole genome sequencing; TSO500, TruSight Oncology 500.

Fig. 3.

Variant comparison between TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and target-enhanced whole genome sequencing (TE-WGS). (A) Representative sequencing depth on TP53 locus for TE-WGS. In general, TE-WGS achieved a 50× sequence depth in 93.12% of targeted regions. (B) A complete correlation in variant allele fractions was detected between TSO500 and TE-WGS methodologies (r=0.978). Of the shared variants, TE-WGS determined 44.8% of the variants to be of germline origin (red color), while 55.2% are identified as somatic variants. (C) Concordance in gene amplification copy number between TSO500 and TE-WGS, after adjusting for tumor purity by TE-WGS (r=0.842, p=7.24e-11). All tier I and II copy number variations from TSO500 were confirmed by TE-WGS. (D) CD74::ROS1 fusion in lung adenocarcinoma was identified by TE-WGS. TPS, targeted-panel sequencing.

Fig. 4.

Tumor cell fraction estimation. (A) TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500)’s reliance on pathologists’ inputs and target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS)’s computational algorithm, leading to evidence discrepancies and a weak correlation (r=0.44). (B) Concordance in gene amplification copy number between TSO500 and TE-WGS, before adjusting for tumor purity by TE-WGS.

Fig. 5.

Comparison of genomic instability biomarkers. (A) Comparison of tumor mutation burden (TMB) assessment between TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS) reveals a good correlation (r=0.89), though some discrepancies were observed in TMB-high classification. (B) 12.2% of tumors classified as TMB-high by TSO500 were deemed TMB-low by TE-WGS. (C) Evaluation of microsatellite instability (MSI) showed strong concordance between TSO500 and TE-WGS (r=0.96); most tumors were MSI-stable, with one notable exception. (D) TE-WGS’ method for assessing homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) effectively distinguished homologous recombination (HR)–proficient from HR-deficient tumors, revealing germline variants in HRD-related genes not identified by TSO500.

Fig. 6.

Mutational signature analysis highlighting tumor samples exhibiting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), as evidenced by the enrichment of single base substitution (SBS) signature 3 and small insertions and deletions (ID) signature 6, and tumors bearing APOBEC (apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptides) mutations, characterized by the enrichment of SBS2 and SBS13 signatures. The presence of the HRD mutational signature suggests an underlying HRD mutational process, even in the absence of related gene mutations like BRCA1/2.

Table 1.

Demographics

Patient characteristic	No. (%)
Sex
Male	31 (63.3)
Female	18 (36.7)
Age (yr)
Mean	58.8
Range	22-86
Tumor Type
Colorectal adenocarcinoma	7 (14.3)
Breast invasive ductal carcinoma	4 (8.2)
Lung adenocarcinoma	2 (4.1)
Lung squamous cell carcinoma	2 (4.1)
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma	11 (22.4)
Renal cell carcinoma	3 (6.1)
Stomach adenocarcinoma	8 (16.3)
Urothelial cancer	3 (6.1)
Other	9 (18.4)

REFERENCES

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. Article PubMed PDF
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48. Article PubMed PDF
3. Lee H, Palm J, Grimes SM, Ji HP. The Cancer Genome Atlas Clinical Explorer: a web and mobile interface for identifying clinical-genomic driver associations. Genome Med. 2015;7:112.Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Rosenquist R, Cuppen E, Buettner R, Caldas C, Dreau H, Elemento O, et al. Clinical utility of whole-genome sequencing in precision oncology. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;84:32–9. Article PubMed
5. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26. Article PubMed
6. Marabelle A, Fakih M, Lopez J, Shah M, Shapira-Frommer R, Nakagawa K, et al. Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1353–65. Article PubMed
7. Palmeri M, Mehnert J, Silk AW, Jabbour SK, Ganesan S, Popli P, et al. Real-world application of tumor mutational burden-high (TMB-high) and microsatellite instability (MSI) confirms their utility as immunotherapy biomarkers. ESMO Open. 2022;7:100336.Article PubMed
8. Wheler JJ, Janku F, Naing A, Li Y, Stephen B, Zinner R, et al. Cancer therapy directed by comprehensive genomic profiling: a single center study. Cancer Res. 2016;76:3690–701. Article PubMed PDF
9. Pleasance E, Bohm A, Williamson LM, Nelson JMT, Shen Y, Bonakdar M, et al. Whole-genome and transcriptome analysis enhances precision cancer treatment options. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:939–49. Article PubMed
10. Simons M, Retel VP, Ramaekers BLT, Butter R, Mankor JM, Paats MS, et al. Early cost effectiveness of whole-genome sequencing as a clinical diagnostic test for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:1429–42. Article PubMed PMC PDF
11. Malone ER, Oliva M, Sabatini PJB, Stockley TL, Siu LL. Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med. 2020;12:8.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Nakagawa H, Fujita M. Whole genome sequencing analysis for cancer genomics and precision medicine. Cancer Sci. 2018;109:513–22. Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Alexandrov LB, Kim J, Haradhvala NJ, Huang MN, Tian Ng AW, Wu Y, et al. The repertoire of mutational signatures in human cancer. Nature. 2020;578:94–101. PubMed PMC
14. Shin HT, Choi YL, Yun JW, Kim NKD, Kim SY, Jeon HJ, et al. Prevalence and detection of low-allele-fraction variants in clinical cancer samples. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1377.PubMed PMC
15. Ferguson S, Sriram S, Wallace JK, Lee J, Kim JA, Lee Y, et al. Analytical and clinical validation of a target-enhanced whole genome sequencing-based comprehensive genomic profiling test. Cancer Invest. 2024;42:390–9. Article PubMed
16. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60. Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Faust GG, Hall IM. SAMBLASTER: fast duplicate marking and structural variant read extraction. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2503–5. Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Van der Auwera GA, Carneiro MO, Hartl C, Poplin R, Del Angel G, Levy-Moonshine A, et al. From FastQ data to high confidence variant calls: the Genome Analysis Toolkit best practices pipeline. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013;43:11.
19. Kim S, Scheffler K, Halpern AL, Bekritsky MA, Noh E, Kallberg M, et al. Strelka2: fast and accurate calling of germline and somatic variants. Nat Methods. 2018;15:591–4. Article PubMed PDF
20. Cibulskis K, Lawrence MS, Carter SL, Sivachenko A, Jaffe D, Sougnez C, et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:213–9. Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Chen X, Schulz-Trieglaff O, Shaw R, Barnes B, Schlesinger F, Kallberg M, et al. Manta: rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:1220–2. Article PubMed PDF
22. McLaren W, Gil L, Hunt SE, Riat HS, Ritchie GR, Thormann A, et al. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biol. 2016;17:122.Article PubMed PMC
23. Favero F, Joshi T, Marquard AM, Birkbak NJ, Krzystanek M, Li Q, et al. Sequenza: allele-specific copy number and mutation profiles from tumor sequencing data. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:64–70. Article PubMed
24. Chang MT, Bhattarai TS, Schram AM, Bielski CM, Donoghue MTA, Jonsson P, et al. Accelerating discovery of functional mutant alleles in Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:174–83. Article PubMed PDF
25. Ramirez F, Ryan DP, Gruning B, Bhardwaj V, Kilpert F, Richter AS, et al. deepTools2: a next generation web server for deep-sequencing data analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W160–5. Article PubMed PMC
26. Niu B, Ye K, Zhang Q, Lu C, Xie M, McLellan MD, et al. MSIsensor: microsatellite instability detection using paired tumor-normal sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1015–6. Article PubMed PDF
27. Davies H, Glodzik D, Morganella S, Yates LR, Staaf J, Zou X, et al. HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat Med. 2017;23:517–25. PubMed PMC
28. Dudley JC, Gurda GT, Tseng LH, Anderson DA, Chen G, Taube JM, et al. Tumor cellularity as a quality assurance measure for accurate clinical detection of BRAF mutations in melanoma. Mol Diagn Ther. 2014;18:409–18. Article PubMed PMC PDF
29. Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, Kulkarni S, Lindeman NI, Roy S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19:4–23. PubMed PMC
30. Chan TA, Yarchoan M, Jaffee E, Swanton C, Quezada SA, Stenzinger A, et al. Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:44–56. Article PubMed
31. Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, Aparicio SA, Behjati S, Biankin AV, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature. 2013;500:415–21. PubMed PMC
32. Burris HA, Saltz LB, Yu PP. Assessing the value of next-generation sequencing tests in a dynamic environment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:139–46. Article PubMed
33. Zhong Y, Xu F, Wu J, Schubert J, Li MM. Application of next generation sequencing in laboratory medicine. Ann Lab Med. 2021;41:25–43. Article PubMed PMC PDF
34. Steuten L, Goulart B, Meropol NJ, Pritchard D, Ramsey SD. Cost effectiveness of multigene panel sequencing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–10. Article
35. Hagemann IS, Devarakonda S, Lockwood CM, Spencer DH, Guebert K, Bredemeyer AJ, et al. Clinical next-generation sequencing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2015;121:631–9. Article PubMed
36. Simons M, Ramaekers B, Peeters A, Mankor J, Paats M, Aerts J, et al. Observed versus modelled lifetime overall survival of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients: a systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020;153:103035.Article PubMed
37. De Leeneer K, Hellemans J, De Schrijver J, Baetens M, Poppe B, Van Criekinge W, et al. Massive parallel amplicon sequencing of the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2: opportunities, challenges, and limitations. Hum Mutat. 2011;32:335–44. Article PubMed
38. Bosdet IE, Docking TR, Butterfield YS, Mungall AJ, Zeng T, Coope RJ, et al. A clinically validated diagnostic second-generation sequencing assay for detection of hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Mol Diagn. 2013;15:796–809. Article PubMed
39. Zhao EY, Jones M, Jones SJM. Whole-genome sequencing in cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2019;9:a034579.Article PubMed PMC
40. Kim YN, Lee K, Park E, Park J, Lee YJ, Nam EJ, et al. Comprehensive genomic and immunohistochemical profiles and outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent or advanced cervical cancer. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1156973.Article PubMed PMC
41. Kim H, Kim R, Kim HR, Jo H, Kim H, Ha SY, et al. HER2 aberrations as a novel marker in advanced biliary tract cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12:834104.Article PubMed PMC
42. Poulsgaard GA, Sorensen SG, Juul RI, Nielsen MM, Pedersen JS. Sequence dependencies and mutation rates of localized mutational processes in cancer. Genome Med. 2023;15:63.Article PubMed PMC PDF
43. Helleday T, Eshtad S, Nik-Zainal S. Mechanisms underlying mutational signatures in human cancers. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:585–98. Article PubMed PMC PDF
44. Wen H, Feng Z, Ma Y, Liu R, Ou Q, Guo Q, et al. Homologous recombination deficiency in diverse cancer types and its correlation with platinum chemotherapy efficiency in ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:550.Article PubMed PMC PDF
45. Tate JG, Bamford S, Jubb HC, Sondka Z, Beare DM, Bindal N, et al. COSMIC: the Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D941–7. Article PubMed
46. Pennell NA, Mutebi A, Zhou ZY, Ricculli ML, Tang W, Wang H, et al. Economic impact of next-generation sequencing versus single-gene testing to detect genomic alterations in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer using a decision analytic model. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1–9. Article
47. Vanderpoel J, Stevens AL, Emond B, Lafeuille MH, Hilts A, Lefebvre P, et al. Total cost of testing for genomic alterations associated with next-generation sequencing versus polymerase chain reaction testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Med Econ. 2022;25:457–68. Article PubMed
48. Li Y, Arellano AR, Bare LA, Bender RA, Strom CM, Devlin JJ. A multigene test could cost-effectively help extend life expectancy for women at risk of hereditary breast cancer. Value Health. 2017;20:547–55. Article PubMed
49. Chandrasekaran D, Sobocan M, Blyuss O, Miller RE, Evans O, Crusz SM, et al. Implementation of multigene germline and parallel somatic genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer: SIGNPOST study. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:4344.Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Target-Enhanced Whole-Genome Sequencing Shows Clinical Validity Equivalent to Commercially Available Targeted Oncology Panel

Cancer Res Treat. 2025;57(2):350-361. Published online September 19, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.114

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Target-Enhanced Whole-Genome Sequencing Shows Clinical Validity Equivalent to Commercially Available Targeted Oncology Panel

Fig. 1. Overview of target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS). This cartoon depicts TE-WGS, which combines a 40× coverage WGS backbone with a focused exploration of over 500 key biomarker genes. This is achieved through the enrichment of pooled WGS libraries. The illustration highlights TE-WGS’s ability to detect low-level biomarker expressions, enhancing diagnostic precision in personalized oncology.

Fig. 2. CONSORT diagram depicting patient enrollment and selection. Of the 56 patients enrolled in the study, only 49 met both the eligibility criteria and sample requirements, and thus, 49 patients were included in the analysis. FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; TE-WGS, target-enhanced whole genome sequencing; TSO500, TruSight Oncology 500.

Fig. 3. Variant comparison between TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and target-enhanced whole genome sequencing (TE-WGS). (A) Representative sequencing depth on TP53 locus for TE-WGS. In general, TE-WGS achieved a 50× sequence depth in 93.12% of targeted regions. (B) A complete correlation in variant allele fractions was detected between TSO500 and TE-WGS methodologies (r=0.978). Of the shared variants, TE-WGS determined 44.8% of the variants to be of germline origin (red color), while 55.2% are identified as somatic variants. (C) Concordance in gene amplification copy number between TSO500 and TE-WGS, after adjusting for tumor purity by TE-WGS (r=0.842, p=7.24e-11). All tier I and II copy number variations from TSO500 were confirmed by TE-WGS. (D) CD74::ROS1 fusion in lung adenocarcinoma was identified by TE-WGS. TPS, targeted-panel sequencing.

Fig. 4. Tumor cell fraction estimation. (A) TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500)’s reliance on pathologists’ inputs and target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS)’s computational algorithm, leading to evidence discrepancies and a weak correlation (r=0.44). (B) Concordance in gene amplification copy number between TSO500 and TE-WGS, before adjusting for tumor purity by TE-WGS.

Fig. 5. Comparison of genomic instability biomarkers. (A) Comparison of tumor mutation burden (TMB) assessment between TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) and target-enhanced whole-genome sequencing (TE-WGS) reveals a good correlation (r=0.89), though some discrepancies were observed in TMB-high classification. (B) 12.2% of tumors classified as TMB-high by TSO500 were deemed TMB-low by TE-WGS. (C) Evaluation of microsatellite instability (MSI) showed strong concordance between TSO500 and TE-WGS (r=0.96); most tumors were MSI-stable, with one notable exception. (D) TE-WGS’ method for assessing homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) effectively distinguished homologous recombination (HR)–proficient from HR-deficient tumors, revealing germline variants in HRD-related genes not identified by TSO500.

Fig. 6. Mutational signature analysis highlighting tumor samples exhibiting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), as evidenced by the enrichment of single base substitution (SBS) signature 3 and small insertions and deletions (ID) signature 6, and tumors bearing APOBEC (apolipoprotein B mRNA-editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptides) mutations, characterized by the enrichment of SBS2 and SBS13 signatures. The presence of the HRD mutational signature suggests an underlying HRD mutational process, even in the absence of related gene mutations like BRCA1/2.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Target-Enhanced Whole-Genome Sequencing Shows Clinical Validity Equivalent to Commercially Available Targeted Oncology Panel

Patient characteristic	No. (%)
Sex
Male	31 (63.3)
Female	18 (36.7)
Age (yr)
Mean	58.8
Range	22-86
Tumor Type
Colorectal adenocarcinoma	7 (14.3)
Breast invasive ductal carcinoma	4 (8.2)
Lung adenocarcinoma	2 (4.1)
Lung squamous cell carcinoma	2 (4.1)
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma	11 (22.4)
Renal cell carcinoma	3 (6.1)
Stomach adenocarcinoma	8 (16.3)
Urothelial cancer	3 (6.1)
Other	9 (18.4)

Table 1. Demographics