Utility of methylated DNA markers for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early identification of malignant biliary strictures (MBSs) is challenging, with up to 20% classified as indeterminants after preliminary testing and tissue sampling with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. We aimed to evaluate the use of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) from biliary brushings to enhance MBS detection in a prospective cohort. APPROACH: Candidate MDMs were evaluated for their utility in MBS diagnosis through a series of discovery and validation phases. DNA was extracted from biliary brushing samples, quantified, bisulfite-converted, and then subjected to methylation-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction.  Patients were considered to have no malignancy if the sampling was negative and there was no evidence of malignancy after 1 year or definitive negative surgical histopathology. RESULTS: Fourteen candidate MDMs were evaluated in the discovery phase, with top-performing and new markers evaluated in the technical validation phase. The top 4 MDMs were TWIST1, HOXA1, VSTM2B, and CLEC11A, which individually achieved AUC values of 0.82, 0.81, 0.83, and 0.78, respectively, with sensitivities of 59.4%, 53.1%, 62.5%, and 50.0%, respectively, at high specificities for malignancy of 95.2%-95.3% for the final biologic validation phase. When combined as a panel, the AUC was 0.86, achieving 73.4% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity, which outperformed cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). CONCLUSIONS: The selected MDMs demonstrated improved performance characteristics for the detection of MBS compared to cytology and FISH. Therefore, MDMs should be considered viable candidates for inclusion in diagnostic testing algorithms.

Evaluating User Experience and DNA Yield from Self-Collection Devices.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized an urgent need for devices used in the self-collection of biospecimens in an evolving patient care system. The mailing of biospecimen self-collection kits to patients, with samples returned via mail, provides a more convenient testing regimen, but could also impart patient sampling variabilities. User compliance with device directions is central to downstream testing of collected biospecimens and clear instructions are central to this goal. METHODS: Here, we performed an evaluation of 10 oral DNA collection devices involving either swab or saliva self-collection and analyzed ease of use and comfort level with a device, as well as DNA recovery quantity/quality and sample stability. RESULTS: We show that while these DNA quality/quantity metrics are comparable between devices, users prefer direct saliva collection over swab-based devices. CONCLUSIONS: This information is useful in guiding future experiments including their use in human RNA, microbial, or viral sample collection/recovery and their use in clinical testing.

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity of Four Point of Care Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR, Quantitative Droplet Digital PCR, and a Mass Spectrometric Antigen Assay as Comparator Methods.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and specificity of 4 rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method and further characterizing samples using droplet digital quantitative PCR (ddPCR) and a mass spectrometric antigen test. METHODS: Three hundred fifty (150 negative and 200 RT-qPCR positive) residual PBS samples were tested for antigen using the BD Veritor lateral flow (LF), ACON LF, ACON fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and LumiraDx FIA. ddPCR was performed on RT-qPCR-positive samples to quantitate the viral load in copies/mL applied to each Ag RDT. Mass spectrometric antigen testing was performed on PBS samples to obtain a set of RT-qPCR-positive, antigen-positive samples for further analysis. RESULTS: All Ag RDTs had nearly 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR. Overall analytical sensitivity varied from 66.5% to 88.3%. All methods detected antigen in samples with viral load >1 500 000 copies/mL RNA, and detected ≥75% of samples with viral load of 500 000 to 1 500 000 copies/mL. The BD Veritor LF detected only 25% of samples with viral load between 50 000 to 500 000 copies/mL, compared to 75% for the ACON LF device and >80% for LumiraDx and ACON FIA. The ACON FIA detected significantly more samples with viral load <50 000 copies/mL compared to the BD Veritor. Among samples with detectable antigen and viral load <50 000 copies/mL, sensitivity of the Ag RDT varied between 13.0% (BD Veritor) and 78.3% (ACON FIA). CONCLUSIONS: Ag RDTs differ significantly in analytical sensitivity, particularly at viral load <500 000 copies/mL.

Evaluation of the genalyte maverick SARS-CoV-2 multi-antigen serology panel.

Serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 can be used for evaluation of past infection in individual patients and for community seroprevalence studies. We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the Genalyte Maverick SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen Serology Panel compared to the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NC) qualitative immunoassay, using well characterized clinical serum samples. A total of 143 pre-pandemic sera and 48 sera collected from patients with a negative molecular SARS-CoV-2 result were used for specificity studies. For sensitivity analyses, 179 sera were used, obtained 3-7 days, 8-14 days, or ≥ 15 days after symptom onset from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Specificity was determined to be 95.3% (182/191) for the Genalyte Maverick. Overall sensitivity of the Genalyte Maverick was similar to that observed for the Roche Elecsys NC test, 79.3% (142/179) vs. 76.5% (137/179), respectively. Genalyte Maverick trended, without statistical significance, towards higher sensitivity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC test in the 3-7 days (11/25 vs. 9/25, respectively) and 8-14 days (21/28 vs. 19/28, respectively) post-symptom onset sample sets, but was identical in the ≥ 15 days post-symptom onset group (106/116 vs. 106/116, respectively). Therefore, the Genalyte Maverick serologic test had similar overall sensitivity to the Roche Elecsys NC assay, but may have slightly improved sensitivity for early seroconversion. The lower Genalyte Maverick specificity as compared to the Roche Elecsys NC assay as reported by other studies (>99%), may necessitate confirmatory testing of positive Genalyte Maverick results if implemented for clinical use.