Optimization of Preanalytical Variables for cfDNA Processing and Detection of ctDNA in Archival Plasma Samples

DNA released from cells into the peripheral blood is known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), representing a promising noninvasive source of biomarkers that could be utilized to manage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), among other diseases. The procedure for purification and handling of cfDNA is not yet standardized, and various preanalytical variables may affect the yield and analysis of cfDNA, including the purification kits, blood collection tubes, and centrifugation regime. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of these preanalytical variables on the yield of cfDNA by comparing three different purification kits DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen), QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen), and Quick-cfDNA Serum & Plasma Kit (Zymo Research). Two blood collection tubes (BCTs), EDTA-K2 and Cell-Free DNA (Streck), stored at four different time points before plasma was separated and cfDNA purified, were compared, and for EDTA tubes, two centrifugation regimes at 2000 × g and 3000 × g were tested. Additionally, we have tested the utility of long-term archival blood samples from DLBCL patients to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). We observed a higher cfDNA yield using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) purification kit, as well as a higher cfDNA yield when blood samples were collected in EDTA BCTs, with a centrifuge regime at 2000 × g. Moreover, ctDNA detection was feasible from archival plasma samples with a median storage time of nine years

Extraction of Cell-Free DNA: Evaluation of Efficiency, Quantity, and Quality

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges owing to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact cfDNA quality and quantity. Efficient and robust cfDNA extraction is essential for reliable results in downstream applications, and various commercial extraction methods exist, each with trade-offs. To aid researchers and clinicians in choosing the proper cfDNA extraction method, manual, semiautomated, and automated methods were evaluated, including the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (manual and QIAcube), QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube), and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony). For each extraction method, cfDNA was extracted on two separate days, using samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. This study assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semiautomated, outperformed the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube) and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony), showing higher recovery rates and cfDNA quantity. All methods were reproducible, with no day-to-day variability and no contamination by high-molecular-weight DNA. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit offers high yield without compromising quality. Implementation of the method should consider specific study and clinical needs, taking into account each method's advantages and limitations for optimal outcomes