RESUMEN
A growing body of research supports stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) density in breast cancer to be a robust prognostic and predicive biomarker. The gold standard for stromal TIL density quantitation in breast cancer is pathologist visual assessment using haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides. Artificial intelligence/machine-learning algorithms are in development to automate the stromal TIL scoring process, and must be validated against a reference standard such as pathologist visual assessment. Visual TIL assessment may suffer from significant interobserver variability. To improve interobserver agreement, regulatory science experts at the US Food and Drug Administration partnered with academic pathologists internationally to create a freely available online continuing medical education (CME) course to train pathologists in assessing breast cancer stromal TILs using an interactive format with expert commentary. Here we describe and provide a user guide to this CME course, whose content was designed to improve pathologist accuracy in scoring breast cancer TILs. We also suggest subsequent steps to translate knowledge into clinical practice with proficiency testing.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Humanos , Femenino , Patólogos , Linfocitos Infiltrantes de Tumor , Inteligencia Artificial , PronósticoRESUMEN
Since the onset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Belgium, UZ/KU Leuven has played a crucial role as the National Reference Centre (NRC) for respiratory pathogens, to be the first Belgian laboratory to develop and implement laboratory developed diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) and later to assess the quality of commercial kits. To meet the growing demand for decentralised testing, both clinical laboratories and government-supported high-throughput platforms were gradually deployed across Belgium. Consequently, the role of the NRC transitioned from a specialised testing laboratory to strengthening capacity and coordinating quality assurance. Here, we outline the measures taken by the NRC, the national public health institute Sciensano and the executing clinical laboratories to ensure effective quality management of molecular testing throughout the initial two years of the pandemic (March 2020 to March 2022).
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Bélgica/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Pandemias , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Técnicas de Diagnóstico MolecularRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results. METHODS: A collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018-19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants. RESULTS: The overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.
Asunto(s)
Ácidos Nucleicos Libres de Células , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Receptores ErbB/genética , Frecuencia de los Genes , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , MutaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), targeted therapies are becoming part of the standard treatment. It is of question which information the clinicians provide on test requests and how the laboratories adapt test conclusions to this knowledge and regulations. METHODS: This study consisted of two components; 1) checking the presence of pre-defined elements (administrative and key for therapy-choice) on completed requests and corresponding reports in Belgian laboratories, both for tissue- and liquid biopsy (LB)-testing and b) opinion analysis from Belgian pathologists/molecular biologists and clinicians during national pathology/oncology meetings. RESULTS: Data from 4 out of 6 Belgian laboratories with ISO-accreditation for LB-testing were analyzed, of which 75% were university hospitals. On the scored requests (N = 4), 12 out of 19 ISO-required elements were present for tissue and 11 for LB-testing. Especially relevant patient history, such as line of therapy (for LB), tumor histology and the reason for testing were lacking. Similarly, 11 and 9 out of 18 elements were present in the reports (N = 4) for tissue and LB, respectively. Elements that pathologists/molecular biologists (N = 18) were missing on the request were the initial activating mutation, previous therapies, a clinical question and testing-related information. For reporting, an item considered important by both groups is the clinical interpretation of the test result. In addition, clinicians (N = 28) indicated that they also wish to read the percentage of neoplastic cells. CONCLUSIONS: Communication flows between the laboratory and the clinician, together with possible pitfalls were identified. Based on the study results, templates for complete requesting and reporting were proposed.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Humanos , Biopsia Líquida , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular , Patología MolecularRESUMEN
A standardized nomenclature for reporting oncology biomarker variants is key to avoid misinterpretation of results and unambiguous registration in clinical databases. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes have revealed a need for more consistent nomenclature use in clinical genetics. We evaluated the propensity of EQA for improvement of compliance with Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations for reporting of predictive somatic variants in lung and colorectal cancer. Variant entries between 2012 and 2018 were collected from written reports and electronic results sheets. In total, 4,053 variants were assessed, of which 12.1% complied with HGVS recommendations. Compliance improved over time from 2.1% (2012) to 22.3% (2018), especially when laboratories participated in multiple EQA schemes. Compliance was better for next-generation sequencing (20.9%) compared with targeted techniques (9.8%). In the 1792 reports, HGVS recommendations for reference sequences were met for 31.9% of reports, for 36.0% of noncommercial, and 26.5% of commercial test methods. Compliance improved from 16.7% (2012) to 33.1% (2018), and after repeated EQA participation. EQA participation improves compliance with HGVS recommendations. The residual percentage of errors in the most recent schemes suggests that laboratories, companies, and EQA providers need to collaborate for additional improvement of harmonization in clinical test reporting.
Asunto(s)
Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Variación Genética , Oncología Médica , Neoplasias/genética , Neoplasias/terapia , Biomarcadores de Tumor , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Adhesión a Directriz , Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto Rendimiento , Humanos , Oncología Médica/métodos , Oncología Médica/normas , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Control de Calidad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Terminología como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Correct identification of the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) variant is key to decide on a targeted therapeutic strategy for patients with acquired EGFR TKI resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correct detection of this variant in 12 tumor tissue specimens tested by 324 laboratories participating in External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes. METHODS: Data from EQA schemes were evaluated between 2013 and 2018 from cell lines (6) and resections (6) containing the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) mutation. Adequate performance was defined as the percentage of tests for which an outcome was available and correct. Additional data on the used test method were collected from the participants. Chi-squared tests on contingency tables and a biserial rank correlation were applied by IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: In 26 of the 1190 tests (2.2%) a technical failure occurred. For the remaining 1164 results, 1008 (86.6%) were correct, 151 (12.9%) were false-negative and 5 (0.4%) included incorrect mutations. Correct p.(Thr790Met) detection improved over time and for repeated scheme participations. In-house non-next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques performed worse (81.1%, n = 293) compared to non-NGS commercial kits (85.2%, n = 656) and NGS (97.0%, n = 239). Over time there was an increase in the users of NGS. Resection specimens performed worse (82.6%, n = 610 tests) compared to cell line material (90.9%, n = 578 tests), except for NGS (96.3%, n = 344 for resections and 98.6%, n = 312 for cell lines). Samples with multiple mutations were more difficult compared to samples with the single p.(Thr790Met) variant. A change of the test method was shown beneficial to reduce errors but introduced additional analysis failures. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of laboratories that offer p.(Thr790Met) testing did not detect this relevant mutation compared to the other EQA participants. However, correct identification of this variant is improving over time and was higher for NGS users. Revising the methodology might be useful to resolve errors, especially for resection specimens with low frequency or multiple variants. EQA providers should include challenging resections in the scheme.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Mutación , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/enzimología , Receptores ErbB/genética , Estudios de Seguimiento , Pruebas Genéticas/métodos , Pruebas Genéticas/normas , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/enzimología , Polimorfismo de Nucleótido Simple , Control de Calidad , Células Tumorales CultivadasRESUMEN
Objectives: The new European In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR) restricts the use of lab-developed tests (LDT) after 26th May 2022. There are no data on the impact of the IVDR on laboratories in the European Union. Methods: Laboratory tests performed in UZ Leuven were divided in four groups: core laboratory, immunology, special chemistry, and molecular microbiology testing. Each test was classified as Conformité Européenne (CE)-IVD, modified/off-label CE-IVD, commercial Research Use Only (RUO) or LDT. Each matrix was considered a separate test. Results: We found that 97.6% of the more than 11.5 million results/year were generated with a CE-IVD method. Of the 922 different laboratory tests, however, only 41.8% were CE-IVD, 10.8% modified/off-label CE-IVD, 0.3% RUO, and 47.1% LDT. Off-label CE-IVD was mainly used to test alternative matrices not covered by the claim of the manufacturer (e.g., pleural or peritoneal fluid). LDTs were mainly used for special chemistry, flow cytometry, and molecular testing. Excluding flow cytometry, the main reasons for the use of 377 LDTs were lack of a CE-IVD method (71.9%), analytical requirements (14.3%), and the fact the LDT was in use before CE-IVD available (11.9%). Conclusions: While the large majority of results (97.6%) were generated with a CE-IVD method, only 41.8% of laboratory tests were CE-IVD. There is currently no alternative on the market for 71.5% of the 537 LDTs performed in our laboratory which do not fall within the scope of the current IVD directive (IVDD). Compliance with the IVDR will require a major investment of time and effort.
Asunto(s)
Hospitales Universitarios/normas , Laboratorios de Hospital/normas , Juego de Reactivos para Diagnóstico/normas , Bélgica , Técnicas de Química Analítica/normas , Técnicas de Química Analítica/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales Universitarios/legislación & jurisprudencia , Hospitales Universitarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Pruebas Inmunológicas/normas , Pruebas Inmunológicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Laboratorios de Hospital/legislación & jurisprudencia , Laboratorios de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Técnicas Microbiológicas/normas , Técnicas Microbiológicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Juego de Reactivos para Diagnóstico/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
AIMS: Results from external quality assessment revealed considerable variation in neoplastic cell percentages (NCP) estimation in samples for biomarker testing. As molecular biology tests require a minimal NCP, overestimations may lead to false negative test results. We aimed to develop recommendations to improve the NCP determination in a prototypical entity - colorectal carcinoma - that can be adapted for other cancer types. METHODS AND RESULTS: A modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus by 10 pathologists from 10 countries with experience in determining the NCP for colorectal adenocarcinoma. This study included two online surveys and a decision-making meeting. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of > 80%. All pathologists completed both surveys. Consensus was reached for 8 out of 19 and 2 out of 13 questions in the first and second surveys, respectively. Remaining issues were resolved during the meeting. Twenty-four recommendations were formulated. Major recommendations resulted as follows: only pathologists should conduct the morphological evaluation; nevertheless molecular biologists/technicians may estimate the NCP, if specific training has been performed and a pathologist is available for feedback. The estimation should be determined in the area with the highest density of viable neoplastic cells and lowest density of inflammatory cells. Other recommendations concerned: the determination protocol itself, needs for micro- and macro-dissection, reporting and interpreting, referral practices and applicability to other cancer types. CONCLUSION: We believe these recommendations may lead to more accurate NCP estimates, ensuring the correct interpretation of test results, and might help in validating digital algorithms in the future.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Oncología Médica/normas , Patología Molecular/normas , Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Oncología Médica/métodos , Patología Molecular/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers allow clinicians to optimise cancer treatment decisions. Therefore, molecular biomarker test results need to be accurate and swiftly available. To ensure quality of oncology biomarker testing, external quality assessments (EQA) for somatic variant analyses were organised. This study hypothesised whether laboratory characteristics influence the performance of laboratories and whether these can be imposed before authorisation of biomarker testing. METHODS: Longitudinal EQA data from the European Society of Pathology were available over six (metastatic colorectal cancer) and four years (non-small cell lung cancer), including the percentage of analysis errors and technical failures, and information on laboratory characteristics (accreditation status, laboratory setting, number of samples analysed and detection method). Statistical models for repeated measurements were used to analyse the association between the EQA results and the laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Laboratory accreditation was associated with fewer analysis errors in early stages of biomarker introduction into the laboratory. Analysing more samples, or university and research laboratories showed better performance. Changing the detection method did not have an effect. CONCLUSION: The indicators support the clinicians in choosing molecular pathology laboratories by improving quality assurance and guaranteeing patient safety. Accreditation of laboratories, centralisation of biomarker testing or a university and research setting should be stimulated.
Asunto(s)
Acreditación/métodos , Biomarcadores de Tumor/genética , Laboratorios/normas , Variación Genética , Humanos , Oncología Médica , Metástasis de la Neoplasia , Control de Calidad , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Molecular analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is becoming increasingly important in clinical treatment decisions. A pilot External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme for ctDNA analysis was organized by four European EQA providers under the umbrella organization IQN Path, in order to investigate the feasibility of delivering an EQA to assess the detection of clinically relevant variants in plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and to analyze reporting formats. METHODS: Thirty-two experienced laboratories received 5 samples for EGFR mutation analysis and/or 5 samples for KRAS and NRAS mutation analysis. Samples were artificially manufactured to contain 3 mL of human plasma with 20 ng/mL of fragmented ctDNA and variants at allelic frequencies of 1 and 5%. RESULTS: The scheme error rate was 20.1%. Higher error rates were observed for RAS testing when compared to EGFR analysis, for allelic frequencies of 1% compared to 5%, and for cases including 2 different variants. The reports over-interpreted wild-type results and frequently failed to comment on the amount of cfDNA extracted. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot scheme demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a ctDNA EQA scheme and the need for such a scheme due to high error rates in detecting low frequency clinically relevant variants. Recommendations to improve reporting of cfDNA are provided.
Asunto(s)
Ácidos Nucleicos Libres de Células/sangre , ADN Tumoral Circulante/sangre , Neoplasias/sangre , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Receptores ErbB/sangre , Humanos , Mutación , Neoplasias/patología , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas p21(ras)/sangreRESUMEN
The Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations provide standardized nomenclature for reporting variants. This should be encouraged in molecular pathology-both for issuing diagnostic reports and for correct data recording in electronic databases. Many providers of external quality assessment (EQA) promote the correct use of HGVS nomenclature by scoring variant descriptions used in EQA reports. This study focuses on the type and impact of variant nomenclature errors. An assessment was made of EGFR gene variant nomenclature by four EQA providers (European Society of Pathology [ESP], European Molecular Genetics Quality Network [EMQN], United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service for Molecular Genetics, and the French national Gen&Tiss EQA scheme) for two EQA distributions. Laboratories testing for oncology biomarkers make different errors when describing EGFR gene variants. Significant differences were observed regarding inclusion of the correct reference sequence: EMQN participants made fewer errors compared to ESP EQA participants (P-value = 0.015). The analysis of ESP EQA participants showed significant improvement over 2 years (P-value = 0.016). Results demonstrate the need for improvement of variant reporting according to HGVS guidelines. Consequences of using incorrect mutation nomenclature are currently perceived as low by many laboratories, but the impact will rise with an increased reliance on databases to assist in result analysis.
Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Terminología como Asunto , Receptores ErbB/genética , Guías como Asunto , Proyecto Genoma Humano/organización & administración , Humanos , Mutación , Control de CalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Regulations for the selection of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for anti-EGFR treatment changed at the end of 2013. The set of mutations to be tested extended from KRAS codons 12 and 13 to KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4. A European external quality assessment scheme monitored the performance of laboratories and evaluated the implementation of the new regulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 131 participating laboratories received 10 samples of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material, including RAS (exon 2, 3, 4) and BRAF mutations. Mock clinical data were provided for three cases. Using their routine methods, laboratories determined the genotypes and submitted three written reports. Assessors scored the results according to predefined evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Half of the participants (49.3%) had completely implemented the new test requirements (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146 of KRAS and NRAS), and 96 laboratories (73.3%) made no genotype mistakes. Correct nomenclature, according to the Human Genome Variation Society, was used by 82 laboratories (62.6%). CONCLUSION: Although regulations were effective for several months, many laboratories were not ready for full RAS testing in the context of anti-EGFR therapy. Nevertheless, in each participating country, there are laboratories that provide complete and correct testing. External quality assessments can be used to monitor implementation of new test regulations and to stimulate the laboratories to improve their testing procedures. Because the results of this program are available on the website of the European Society of Pathology, patients and clinicians can refer test samples to a reliable laboratory.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor/genética , Neoplasias Colorrectales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/genética , Receptores ErbB/antagonistas & inhibidores , Técnicas de Genotipaje/métodos , Laboratorios de Hospital/normas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas/genética , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Proteínas ras/genética , Codón , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Análisis Mutacional de ADN/métodos , Exones , Genotipo , Humanos , Ensayos de Aptitud de Laboratorios , Selección de Paciente , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas p21(ras)RESUMEN
External quality assessment (EQA) schemes are a tool for clinical laboratories to evaluate and manage the quality of laboratory practice with the support of an independent party (i.e., an EQA provider). Depending on the context, there are different types of EQA schemes available, as well as various EQA providers, each with its own field of expertise. In this review, an overview of the general requirements for EQA schemes and EQA providers based on international guidelines is provided. The clinical and scientific value of these kinds of schemes for clinical laboratories, clinicians and patients are highlighted, in addition to the support EQA can provide to other types of laboratories, e.g., laboratories affiliated to biotech companies. Finally, recent developments and challenges in laboratory medicine and quality management, for example, the introduction of artificial intelligence in the laboratory and the shift to a more individual-approach instead of a laboratory-focused approach, are discussed. EQA schemes should represent current laboratory practice as much as possible, which poses the need for EQA providers to introduce latest laboratory innovations in their schemes and to apply up-to-date guidelines. By incorporating these state-of-the-art techniques, EQA aims to contribute to continuous learning.
RESUMEN
Results of clinical genomic testing must be reported in a clear, concise format to ensure they are understandable and interpretable. It is important laboratories are aware of the information which is essential to make sure the results are not open to misinterpretation. As genomic testing has continued to evolve over the past decade, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic) published in 2014 have been reviewed and updated to provide the genomic community with guidance on reporting unambiguous results.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Genómica , HumanosRESUMEN
Biomarker testing is crucial for treatment selection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the quantity of available tissue often presents a key constraint for patients with advanced disease, where minimally invasive tissue biopsy typically returns small samples. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to small sample processing for patients with NSCLC. Generally, tissue biopsy techniques that deliver the greatest quantity and quality of tissue with the least risk to the patient should be selected. Rapid on-site evaluation can help to ensure sufficient sample quality and quantity. Sample processing should be managed according to biomarker testing requirements, because tissue fixation methodology influences downstream nucleic acid, protein and morphological analyses. Accordingly, 10% neutral buffered formalin is recommended as an appropriate fixative, and the duration of fixation is recommended not to exceed 24-48 h. Tissue sparing techniques, including the 'one biopsy per block' approach and small sample cutting protocols, can help preserve tissue. Cytological material (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] cytology blocks and non-FFPE samples such as smears and touch preparations) can be an excellent source of nucleic acid, providing either primary or supplementary patient material to complete morphological and molecular diagnoses. Considerations on biomarker testing, reporting and quality assessment are discussed in Part 2.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Ácidos Nucleicos , Biomarcadores , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Testimonio de Experto , Fijadores , Formaldehído , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Adhesión en Parafina , Fijación del Tejido/métodosRESUMEN
The diagnostic work-up for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires biomarker testing to guide therapy choices. This article is the second of a two-part series. In Part 1, we summarised evidence-based recommendations for obtaining and processing small specimen samples (i.e. pre-analytical steps) from patients with advanced NSCLC. Here, in Part 2, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to analytical steps of biomarker testing (and associated reporting and quality assessment) of small specimen samples in NSCLC. As the number of biomarkers for actionable (genetic) targets and approved targeted therapies continues to increase, simultaneous testing of multiple actionable oncogenic drivers using next-generation sequencing (NGS) becomes imperative, as set forth in European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. This is particularly relevant in advanced NSCLC, where tissue specimens are typically limited and NGS may help avoid tissue exhaustion compared with sequential biomarker testing. Despite guideline recommendations, significant discrepancies in access to NGS persist across Europe, primarily due to reimbursement constraints. The use of increasingly complex testing methods also has implications for the reporting of results. Molecular testing reports should include clinical interpretation with additional commentary on sample adequacy as appropriate. Molecular tumour boards are recommended to facilitate the interpretation of complex genetic information arising from NGS, and to collaboratively determine the optimal treatment for patients with NSCLC. Finally, whichever testing modality is employed, it is essential that adequate internal and external validation and quality control measures are implemented.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Biomarcadores , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Testimonio de Experto , Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto Rendimiento/métodos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , MutaciónRESUMEN
We present our approach to rapidly establishing a standardized, multi-site, nation-wide COVID-19 screening program in Belgium. Under auspices of a federal government Task Force responsible for upscaling the country's testing capacity, we were able to set up a national testing initiative with readily available resources, putting in place a robust, validated, high-throughput, and decentralized qPCR molecular testing platform with embedded proficiency testing. We demonstrate how during an acute scarcity of equipment, kits, reagents, personnel, protective equipment, and sterile plastic supplies, we introduced an approach to rapidly build a reliable, validated, high-volume, high-confidence workflow based on heterogeneous instrumentation and diverse assays, assay components, and protocols. The workflow was set up with continuous quality control monitoring, tied together through a clinical-grade information management platform for automated data analysis, real-time result reporting across different participating sites, qc monitoring, and making result data available to the requesting physician and the patient. In this overview, we address challenges in optimizing high-throughput cross-laboratory workflows with minimal manual intervention through software, instrument and assay validation and standardization, and a process for harmonized result reporting and nation-level infection statistics monitoring across the disparate testing methodologies and workflows, necessitated by a rapid scale-up as a response to the pandemic.
RESUMEN
Currently, two nomenclature systems are in use to describe sequence variants for cystic fibrosis: the established traditional nomenclature system and the more recent Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature system. We have evaluated the use of both systems in the laboratory reports of 217 participants in the cystic fibrosis external quality assessment scheme of 2009. The mutation c.1521_1523delCTT (p.Phe508del, F508del) was described by traditional and HGVS nomenclature by 32 of 216 (15%) laboratories that correctly identified the mutation, whereas 171 (79%) laboratories used traditional nomenclature only and 13 (6%) laboratories used HGVS nomenclature only. Overall, 29 of 631 (5%) reports used nomenclature that was evaluated as being seriously incorrect and/or misleading and 136 (22%) reports contained attempts at HGVS coding, of which 104 (76%) contained no coding errors; just 33 (24%) mentioned the correct cDNA name and cited the nucleotide reference sequence. We recognized an urgent need for more consistent and correct usage of nomenclature. We recommended that cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator testing reports should include a description of the identified sequence variants in both HGVS and traditional nomenclature and provided basic recommendations and other guidance.
Asunto(s)
Regulador de Conductancia de Transmembrana de Fibrosis Quística/genética , Fibrosis Quística/genética , Mutación , Terminología como Asunto , Regulador de Conductancia de Transmembrana de Fibrosis Quística/clasificación , Pruebas Genéticas , Variación Genética , Genoma Humano , Humanos , Control de Calidad , Análisis de Secuencia de ADNRESUMEN
The use of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeting antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer has been restricted to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors by the European Medicines Agency since 2008, based on data showing a lack of efficacy and potential harm in patients with mutant KRAS tumors. In an effort to ensure optimal, uniform, and reliable community-based KRAS testing throughout Europe, a KRAS external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was set up. The first large assessment round included 59 laboratories from eight different European countries. For each country, one regional scheme organizer prepared and distributed the samples for the participants of their own country. The samples included unstained sections of 10 invasive colorectal carcinomas with known KRAS mutation status. The samples were centrally validated by one of two reference laboratories. The laboratories were allowed to use their own preferred method for histological evaluation, DNA isolation, and mutation analysis. In this study, we analyze the setup of the KRAS scheme. We analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the regional scheme organization by analyzing the outcome of genotyping results, analysis of tumor percentage, and written reports. We conclude that only 70% of laboratories correctly identified the KRAS mutational status in all samples. Both the false-positive and false-negative results observed negatively affect patient care. Reports of the KRAS test results often lacked essential information. We aim to further expand this program to more laboratories to provide a robust estimate of the quality of KRAS testing in Europe, and provide the basis for remedial measures and harmonization.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/genética , Análisis Mutacional de ADN/normas , Genes ras , Laboratorios de Hospital/normas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas/genética , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Proteínas ras/genética , Anticuerpos , Análisis Mutacional de ADN/métodos , Receptores ErbB/inmunología , Europa (Continente) , Pruebas Genéticas , Genotipo , Humanos , Mutación , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas p21(ras) , Control de CalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Cystic Fibrosis European Network, coordinated from within the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, is the provider of the European cystic fibrosis external quality assessment (EQA) scheme. The network aimed to seek feedback from laboratories that participated in the cystic fibrosis scheme in order to improve services offered. In this study we analysed responses to an on-line customer satisfaction survey conducted between September and November 2009. METHODS: The survey was sent to 213 laboratories that participated in the cystic fibrosis EQA scheme of 2008; 69 laboratories (32%) responded. Scores for importance and satisfaction were obtained from a five-point Likert scale for 24 attributes. A score of one corresponded to very dissatisfied/very unimportant and five corresponded to very satisfied/very important. Means were calculated and placed in a two-dimensional grid (importance-satisfaction analysis). Means were subtracted from each other to obtain gap values (gap-analysis). RESULTS: No attribute had a mean score below 3.63. The overall mean of satisfaction was 4.35. Opportunities for improvement enclosed clarity, usefulness and completeness of the general report and individual comments, and user-friendliness of the electronic datasheet. CONCLUSIONS: This type of customer satisfaction survey was a valuable instrument to identify opportunities to improve the cystic fibrosis EQA scheme. It should be conducted on a regular basis to reveal new opportunities in the future and to assess effectiveness of actions taken. Moreover, it could be a model for other EQA providers seeking feedback from participants. Overall, the customer satisfaction survey provided a powerful quality of care improvement tool.