Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA is an established biomarker for endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, existing real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays are limited by poor interlaboratory reproducibility. This is a barrier to biomarker integration into staging systems and management. It was hypothesized that EBV digital PCR (dPCR) would have similar sensitivity but improved precision relative to qPCR. Using the World Health Organization EBV standard and patient specimens, the NRG-HN001 BamHI-W qPCR, two commercial EBNA-1 qPCR assays, and two laboratory-developed dPCR assays amplifying the BamHI-W, EBNA-1, and EBER targets were compared. Testing was conducted in the North American reference laboratory for the NRG-HN001 randomized trial. The EBV dPCR assays achieved similar performance compared with qPCR. Although dPCR does not require quantitation standards, different dPCR thresholding algorithms yielded significant qualitative and quantitative variation. This was most evident with low levels of EBV DNA. No-template control-informed thresholding (ddpcRquant) mitigated false-positive/false-negative findings. The NRG-HN001 BamHI-W qPCR and laboratory-developed BamHI-W droplet dPCR offered higher sensitivity, lower limit of blank, higher precision at low plasma EBV DNA levels (≤1500 IU/mL), and higher overall agreement with clinical specimens versus single-copy qPCR/dPCR targets (EBNA-1/EBER). These data confirm the rationale for using the BamHI-W target to define prognostic thresholds and indicate that both qPCR and dPCR methods harmonized to the World Health Organization standard can provide the necessary analytical performance.
Miller et al. (Sat,) studied this question.