scholarly journals Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Molecular Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Author(s):  
Neena Kanwar ◽  
Dithi Banerjee ◽  
Anjana Sasidharan ◽  
Ayah Abdulhamid ◽  
Marissa Larson ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohita Gaur ◽  
Anoop Singh ◽  
Vishal Sharma ◽  
Gayatri Tandon ◽  
Ankur Bothra ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Andrei Darie ◽  
Desiree Schumann ◽  
Adrian Egli ◽  
Nina Khanna ◽  
Michael Tamm ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Mironas ◽  
David Jarrom ◽  
Evan Campbell ◽  
Jennifer Washington ◽  
Sabine Ettinger ◽  
...  

AbstractAs COVID-19 testing is rolled out increasingly widely, the use of a range of alternative testing methods will be beneficial in ensuring testing systems are resilient and adaptable to different clinical and public health scenarios. Here, we compare and discuss the diagnostic performance of a range of different molecular assays designed to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with suspected COVID-19. Using findings from a systematic review of 103 studies, we categorised COVID-19 molecular assays into 12 different test classes, covering point-of-care tests, various alternative RT-PCR protocols, and alternative methods such as isothermal amplification. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of each test class. We also estimated the positive and negative predictive values of all diagnostic test classes across a range of prevalence rates. Using previously validated RT-PCR assays as a reference standard, 11 out of 12 classes showed a summary sensitivity estimate of at least 92% and a specificity estimate of at least 99%. Several diagnostic test classes were estimated to have positive predictive values of 100% throughout the investigated prevalence spectrum, whilst estimated negative predictive values were more variable and sensitive to disease prevalence. We also report the results of clinical utility models that can be used to determine the information gained from a positive and negative test result in each class, and whether each test is more suitable for confirmation or exclusion of disease. Our analysis suggests that several tests exist that are suitable alternatives to standard RT-PCR and we discuss scenarios in which these could be most beneficial, such as where time to test result is critical or, where resources are constrained. However, we also highlight methodological concerns with the design and conduct of many included studies, and also the existence of likely publication bias for some test classes. Our results should be interpreted with these shortcomings in mind. Furthermore, our conclusions on test performance are limited to their use in symptomatic populations: we did not identify sufficient suitable data to allow analysis of testing in asymptomatic populations.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franceska Dedeurwaerdere ◽  
Kathleen Claes ◽  
Jo Van Dorpe ◽  
Isabelle Rottiers ◽  
Joni Van der Meulen ◽  
...  

Abstract DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing is crucial for diagnosing Lynch syndrome and detection of microsatellite unstable (MSI) tumors eligible for immunotherapy.In this study, we compared the diagnostic performance of three molecular MSI assays: polymerase chain reaction (PCR), MSI testing by Idylla TM and next-generation-sequencing (NGS) on 49 tumor samples (28 colorectal and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas) versus immunohistochemistry (IHC). Discrepancies were investigated by MLH1 methylation analysis and integrated with germline results if available.Overall, the molecular assays achieved equivalent diagnostic performance for MSI detection with area under the ROC curves (AUC) of respectively 0.91 for Idylla TM and PCR, and 0.93 for NGS. In colorectal cancers with tumor cell percentage ≥ 30% all three molecular assays achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 1) versus IHC. Also, in endometrial cancers, all three molecular assays showed equivalent diagnostic performance, albeit at a clearly lower sensitivity ranging from 58% for IdyllaTM to 75% for NGS, corresponding to negative predictive values from 78% to 86%.PCR, IdyllaTM and NGS show similar diagnostic performance for dMMR detection in colorectal and endometrial cancers. Molecular MSI analysis has lower sensitivity for dMMR detection in endometrial cancer indicating that combined use of both IHC and molecular methods is recommended.Clinical Trial Number/IRB: B1172020000040, Ethical Committee, AZ Delta General Hospital


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Franceska Dedeurwaerdere ◽  
Kathleen BM Claes ◽  
Jo Van Dorpe ◽  
Isabelle Rottiers ◽  
Joni Van der Meulen ◽  
...  

AbstractDNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing is crucial for diagnosing Lynch syndrome and detection of microsatellite unstable (MSI) tumors eligible for immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the relative diagnostic performance of three molecular MSI assays: polymerase chain reaction (PCR), MSI testing by Idylla and next-generation-sequencing (NGS) on 49 tumor samples (28 colorectal and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas) versus immunohistochemistry (IHC). Discrepancies were investigated by MLH1 methylation analysis and integrated with germline results if available. Overall, the molecular assays achieved equivalent diagnostic performance for MSI detection with area under the ROC curves (AUC) of respectively 0.91 for Idylla and PCR, and 0.93 for NGS. In colorectal cancers with tumor cell percentages ≥ 30% all three molecular assays achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 1) versus IHC. Also, in endometrial cancers, all three molecular assays showed equivalent diagnostic performance, albeit at a clearly lower sensitivity ranging from 58% for Idylla to 75% for NGS, corresponding to negative predictive values from 78 to 86%. PCR, Idylla and NGS show similar diagnostic performance for dMMR detection in colorectal and endometrial cancers. Molecular MSI analysis has lower sensitivity for dMMR detection in endometrial cancer indicating that combined use of both IHC and molecular methods is recommended.Clinical Trial Number/IRB: B1172020000040, Ethical Committee, AZ Delta General Hospital.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlen Kanagui ◽  
Melissa A. Rico ◽  
Jeanett Castellanos ◽  
Alberta M. Gloria

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document