Abstract
The development of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has provided useful diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for individualized management of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) patients. Consequently, NGS is rapidly being established in clinical practice. However, the technology's complexity, bioinformatics analysis, and the different available options difficult a broad consensus between different laboratories in its daily routine introduction. This collaborative study among Spanish centers was aimed to assess the feasibility, pros, and cons of our customized panel and other commercial alternatives of NGS-targeted approaches. The custom panel was tested in three different sequencing centers. We used the same samples to assess other commercial panels (Oncomine(TM) Childhood Cancer Research Assay; Archer(®)FusionPlex(®) ALL, and Human Comprehensive Cancer Panel GeneRead Panel v2(®)). Overall, the panels showed a good performance in different centers and platforms, but each NGS approach presented some issues, as well as pros and cons. Moreover, a previous consensus on the analysis and reporting following international guidelines would be preferable to improve the concordance in results among centers. Our study shows the challenges posed by NGS methodology and the need to consider several aspects of the chosen NGS-targeted approach and reach a consensus before implementing it in daily practice.