Development of Sensitive Droplet Digital PCR Assays for Detecting Urinary TERT Promoter Mutations as Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Detection of Urothelial Cancer

Simple Summary The gold standard method for the diagnosis of bladder cancer (BC) is the invasive and expensive cystoscopy. Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations occur frequently (60-90%) in BC. In this study, we developed highly sensitive droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays for detecting low-allelic fraction TERT promoter mutations (C228T, C228A, CC242-243TT and C250T) in urinary cell-free and/or cell pellet DNA of BC patients and compared their performance with our previously established NGS-based assay (UroMuTERT) in two independent case-control studies: DIAGURO (n = 89 cases and n = 92 controls) and IPO-PORTO (n = 49 cases and n = 50 controls). The sensitivity and specificity of the ddPCR assays in detecting TERT promoter mutations in BC cases and controls were very high and comparable to the UroMuTERT assay. However, the technical and analytical simplicity of the ddPCR assays make them suitable candidates for clinical implementation. Somatic mutations in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter regions are frequent events in urothelial cancer (UC) and their detection in urine (supernatant cell-free DNA or DNA from exfoliated cells) could serve as putative non-invasive biomarkers for UC detection and monitoring. However, detecting these tumor-borne mutations in urine requires highly sensitive methods, capable of measuring low-level mutations. In this study, we developed sensitive droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays for detecting TERT promoter mutations (C228T, C228A, CC242-243TT, and C250T). We tested the C228T and C250T ddPCR assays on all samples with sufficient quantity of urinary DNA (urine supernatant cell-free DNA (US cfDNA) or urine pellet cellular DNA (UP cellDNA)) from the DIAGURO (n = 89/93 cases and n = 92/94 controls) and from the IPO-PORTO (n = 49/50 cases and n = 50/50 controls) series that were previously screened with the UroMuTERT assay and compared the performance of the two approaches. In the DIAGURO series, the sensitivity and specificity of the ddPCR assays for detecting UC using either US cfDNA or UP cellDNA were 86.8% and 92.4%. The sensitivity was slightly higher than that of the UroMuTERT assay in the IPO-PORTO series (67.4% vs. 65.3%, respectively), but not in the DIAGURO series (86.8% vs. 90.7%). The specificity was 100% in the IPO-PORTO controls for both the UroMuTERT and ddPCR assays, whereas in the DIAGURO series, the specificity dropped for ddPCR (92.4% versus 95.6%). Overall, an almost perfect agreement between the two methods was observed for both US cfDNA (n = 164; kappa coefficient of 0.91) and UP cellDNA (n = 280; kappa coefficient of 0.94). In a large independent series of serial urine samples from DIAGURO follow-up BC cases (n = 394), the agreement between ddPCR and UroMuTERT was (i) strong (kappa coefficient of 0.87), regardless of urine DNA types (kappa coefficient 0.89 for US cfDNA and 0.85 for UP cellDNA), (ii) the highest for samples with mutant allelic fractions (MAFs) > 2% (kappa coefficient of 0.99) and (iii) only minimal for the samples with the lowest MAFs (< 0.5%; kappa coefficient 0.32). Altogether, our results indicate that the two methods (ddPCR and UroMuTERT) for detecting urinary TERT promoter mutations are comparable and that the discrepancies relate to the detection of low-allelic fraction mutations. The simplicity of the ddPCR assays makes them suitable for implementation in clinical settings.