SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, requires reliable diagnostic methods to track the circulation of this virus. Following the development of RT-qPCR methods to meet this diagnostic need in January 2020, it became clear from interlaboratory studies that the reported Ct values obtained for the different laboratories showed high variability. Despite this the Ct values were explored as a quantitative cut off to aid clinical decisions based on viral load. Consequently, there was a need to introduce standards to support estimation of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in diagnostic specimens. In a collaborative study, INSTAND established two reference materials (RMs) containing heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads of ~10⁷ copies/mL (RM 1) and ~10⁶ copies/mL (RM 2), respectively. Quantification was performed by RT-qPCR using synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA standards and digital PCR. Between November 2020 and February 2021, German laboratories were invited to use the two RMs to anchor their Ct values measured in routine diagnostic specimens, with the Ct values of the two RMs. A total of 305 laboratories in Germany were supplied with RM 1 and RM 2. The laboratories were requested to report their measured Ct values together with details on the PCR method they used to INSTAND. This resultant 1,109 data sets were differentiated by test system and targeted gene region. Our findings demonstrate that an indispensable prerequisite for linking Ct values to SARS-CoV-2 viral loads is that they are treated as being unique to an individual laboratory. For this reason, clinical guidance based on viral loads should not cite Ct values. The RMs described were a suitable tool to determine the specific laboratory Ct for a given viral load. Furthermore, as Ct values can also vary between runs when using the same instrument, such RMs could be used as run controls to ensure reproducibility of the quantitative measurements.

Well-characterized reference materials support harmonization and accuracy when conducting nucleic acid-based tests (such as qPCR); digital PCR (dPCR) can measure the absolute concentration of a specific nucleic acid sequence in a background of non-target sequences, making it ideal for the characterization of nucleic acid-based reference materials. National Metrology Institutes are increasingly using dPCR to characterize and certify their reference materials, as it offers several advantages over indirect methods, such as UV-spectroscopy. While dPCR is gaining widespread adoption, it requires optimization and has certain limitations and considerations that users should be aware of when characterizing reference materials. This review highlights the technical considerations of dPCR, as well as its role when developing and characterizing nucleic acid-based reference materials.

PURPOSE: We report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in translating ctDNA results into clinical actions.METHODS: In this phase I study, QCMs with 14 clinically relevant mutations representing single nucleotide variants, insertions or deletions (indels), translocations, and copy number variants were sourced from three commercial manufacturers with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0%. Four laboratories tested samples in quadruplicate using two allele-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and three (amplicon and hybrid capture) next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels.RESULTS: The two droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays reported VAF values very close to the manufacturers’ claimed concentrations for all QCMs. NGS assays reported most single nucleotide variants and indels, but not translocations, close to the expected VAF values. Notably, two NGS assays reported lower VAF than expected for all translocations in all QCM mixtures, possibly related to technical challenges detecting these variants. The ability to call ERBB2 copy number amplifications varied across assays. All three QCMs provided valuable insight into assay precision. Each assay across all variant types demonstrated dropouts at 0.1%, suggesting that the QCM can serve for testing of an assay’s limit of detection with confidence claims for specific variants.CONCLUSION: These results support the utility of the QCM in testing ctDNA assay analytical performance. However, unique designs and manufacturing methods for the QCM, and variations in a laboratory’s testing configuration, may require testing of multiple QCMs to find the best reagents for accurate result interpretation.

Nucleic acid analysis is used in many areas of life sciences such as medicine, food safety, and environmental monitoring. Accurate, reliable measurements of nucleic acids are crucial for maximum impact, yet users are often unaware of the global metrological infrastructure that exists to support these measurements. In this work, we describe international efforts to improve nucleic acid analysis, with a focus on the Nucleic Acid Analysis Working Group (NAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance: Metrology in Chemistry and Biology (CCQM). The NAWG is an international group dedicated to improving the global comparability of nucleic acid measurements; its primary focus is to support the development and maintenance of measurement capabilities and the dissemination of measurement services from its members: the National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs). These NMIs and DIs provide DNA and RNA measurement services developed in response to the needs of their stakeholders. The NAWG members have conducted cutting edge work over the last 20 years, demonstrating the ability to support the reliability, comparability, and traceability of nucleic acid measurement results in a variety of sectors.