Implementation of circulating tumour DNA multi-target mutation testing in plasma: a perspective from an external quality assessment providers' survey.

Demand for large-scale tumour profiling across cancer types has increased in recent years, driven by the emergence of targeted drug therapies. Analysing alternations in plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for cancer detection can improve survival; ctDNA testing is recommended when tumour tissue is unavailable. An online survey of molecular pathology testing was circulated by six external quality assessment members of IQN Path to registered laboratories and all IQN Path collaborative corporate members. Data from 275 laboratories across 45 countries were collected; 245 (89%) perform molecular pathology testing, including 177 (64%) which perform plasma ctDNA diagnostic service testing. The most common tests were next-generation sequencing-based (n = 113). Genes with known stratified treatment options, including KRAS (n = 97), NRAS (n = 84), and EGFR (n = 130), were common targets. The uptake of ctDNA plasma testing and plans to implement further testing demonstrates the importance of support from a well-designed EQA scheme.

External quality assessment (EQA) for tumor mutational burden: results of an international IQN path feasibility pilot scheme.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has recently been approved as an agnostic biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, methods for TMB testing have not yet been standardized. The International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath) organized a pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for TMB testing. The aim of this program was the validation of the materials and the procedures for the EQA of this complex biomarker. Five formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell lines were selected to mimic the various TMB values observed in clinical practice. The FFPE samples were tested with the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) assay as the reference test and three commercially available targeted sequencing panels. Following this internal validation, the five cell lines were sent to 29 laboratories selected on the basis of a previous survey. Nineteen of the 23 laboratories that submitted results (82.6%) used targeted sequencing for TMB estimation. Only two laboratories performed whole exome sequencing (WES) and two assessed TMB by clinical exome. A high variability in the reported TMB values was observed. The variability was higher for samples with the highest TMB value according to the F1CDx test. However, good reproducibility of the TMB score was shown by laboratories using the same panel. The majority of laboratories did not indicate a TMB cut-off value for clinical interpretation. In conclusion, this pilot EQA scheme suggests that it is feasible to run such an EQA program for TMB assessment. However, the results of our pilot highlight the numerous challenges for the standardization of this test.

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer.

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.

Tumor mutation burden testing: a survey of the International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path).

While tumour mutation burden (TMB) is emerging as a possible biomarker for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), methods for testing have not been standardised as yet. In April 2019, the International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) launched a survey to assess the current practice of TMB testing. Of the 127 laboratories that replied, 69 (54.3%) had already introduced TMB analysis for research purposes and/or clinical applications. Fifty laboratories (72.5%) used targeted sequencing, although a number of different panels were employed. Most laboratories tested formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material (94.2%), while 18/69 (26%) tested also cell-free DNA. Fifty-five laboratories used both single nucleotide variants and indels for TMB calculation; 20 centers included only non-synonymous variants. In conclusion, the data from this survey indicate that multiple global laboratories were capable of rapidly introducing routine clinical TMB testing. However, the variability of testing methods raises concerns about the reproducibility of results among centers.

External Quality Assessment Schemes for Biomarker Testing in Oncology: Comparison of Performance between Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded-Tissue and Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Plasma.

Liquid biopsies have emerged as a useful addition to tissue biopsies in molecular pathology. Literature has shown lower laboratory performances when a new method of variant analysis is introduced. This study evaluated the differences in variant analysis between tissue and plasma samples after the introduction of liquid biopsy in molecular analysis. Data from a pilot external quality assessment scheme for the detection of molecular variants in plasma samples and from external quality assessment schemes for the detection of molecular variants in tissue samples were collected. Laboratory performance and error rates by sample were compared between matrices for variants present in both scheme types. Results showed lower overall performance [65.6% (n = 276) versus 89.2% (n = 1607)] and higher error rates [21.0% to 43.5% (n = 138) versus 8.7% to 16.7% (n = 234 to 689)] for the detection of variants in plasma compared to tissue, respectively. In the plasma samples, performance was decreased for variants with an allele frequency of 1% compared to 5% [56.5% (n = 138) versus 74.6% (n = 138)]. The implementation of liquid biopsy in the detection of circulating tumor DNA in plasma was associated with poor laboratory performance. It is important both to apply optimal detection methods and to extensively validate new methods for testing circulating tumor DNA before treatment decisions are made.

One byte at a time: evidencing the quality of clinical service next-generation sequencing for germline and somatic variants.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is replacing other molecular techniques to become the de facto gene diagnostics approach, transforming the speed of diagnosis for patients and expanding opportunities for precision medicine. Consequently, for accredited laboratories as well as those seeking accreditation, both objective measures of quality and external review of laboratory processes are required. External quality assessment (EQA), or Proficiency Testing (PT), can assess a laboratory's service through an independent external agency, the EQA provider. The analysis of a growing number of genes and whole exome and genomes is now routine; therefore, an EQA must be delivered to enable all testing laboratories to participate. In this paper, we describe the development of a unique platform and gene target independent EQA scheme for NGS, designed to scale from current to future requirements of clinical diagnostic laboratories testing for germline and somatic variants. The EQA results from three annual rounds indicate that clinical diagnostic laboratories are providing an increasingly high-quality NGS service and variant calling abilities are improving. From an EQA provider perspective, challenges remain regarding delivery and performance criteria, as well as in analysing similar NGS approaches between cohorts with meaningful metrics, sample sourcing and data formats.

IQN path ASBL report from the first European cfDNA consensus meeting: expert opinion on the minimal requirements for clinical ctDNA testing.

Liquid biopsy testing is a new laboratory-based method that detects tumour mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) derived from minimally invasive blood sampling techniques. Recognising the significance for clinical testing, in 2017, IQN Path provided external quality assessment for liquid biopsy testing. Representatives of those participating laboratories were invited to attend a workshop to discuss the findings and how to achieve quality implementation of cfDNA testing in the clinical setting, the discussion and outcomes of this consensus meeting are described below. Predictive molecular profiling using tumour tissue in order to select cancer patients eligible for targeted therapy is now routine in diagnostic pathology. If insufficient tumour tissue material is available, in some circumstances, recent European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance recommends mutation testing with plasma cfDNA. Clinical applications of cfDNA include treatment selection based on clinically relevant mutations derived from pre-treatment samples and the detection of resistant mutations upon progression of the disease. In order to identify tumour-related mutations in amongst other nucleic acid material found in plasma samples, highly sensitive laboratory methods are needed. In the workshop, we discussed the variable approaches taken with regard to cfDNA extraction methods, the tests, and considered the impact of false-negative test results. We explored the lack of standardisation of complex testing procedures ranging from plasma collection, transport, processing and storage, cfDNA extraction, and mutation analysis, to interpretation and reporting of results. We will also address the current status of clinical validation and clinical utility, and its use in current diagnosis. This workshop revealed a need for guidelines on with standardised procedures for clinical cfDNA testing and reporting, and a requirement for cfDNA-based external quality assessment programs.

Validation of the Oncomine™ focus panel for next-generation sequencing of clinical tumour samples.

The clinical utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for a diverse range of targets is expanding, increasing the need for multiplexed analysis of both DNA and RNA. However, translation into daily use requires a rigorous and comprehensive validation strategy. The aim of this clinical validation was to assess the performance of the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (IonPGM™) and validate the Oncomine™ Focus DNA and RNA Fusion panels for clinical application in solid tumour testing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. Using a mixture of routine FFPE and reference material across a variety of tissue and specimen types, we sequenced 86 and 31 samples on the Oncomine™ Focus DNA and RNA Fusion assays, respectively. This validation considered a number of parameters including the clinical robustness of the bioinformatics pipeline for variant detection and interpretation. The Oncomine™ Focus DNA assay had a sample and variant-based sensitivity of 99.1 and 97.1%, respectively, and an assay specificity of 100%. The Oncomine™ Focus Fusion panel had a good sensitivity and specificity based upon the samples assessed, however requires further validation to confirm findings due to limited sample numbers. We observed a good sequencing performance based upon amplicon, gene (hotspot variants within gene) and sample specific analysis with 92% of clinical samples obtaining an average amplicon coverage above 500X. Detection of some indels was challenging for the routine IonReporter™ workflow; however, the addition of NextGENe® software improved indel identification demonstrating the importance of both bench and bioinformatic validation. With an increasing number of clinically actionable targets requiring a variety of methodologies, NGS provides a cost-effective and time-saving methodology to assess multiple targets across different modalities. We suggest the use of multiple analysis software to ensure identification of clinically applicable variants.

International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA.

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.

Results of the UK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics reference sample analysis.

AIMS: In addition to providing external quality assessment (EQA) schemes, United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment service (UK NEQAS) for Molecular Genetics also supports the education of laboratories. As an enhancement to the Molecular Pathology EQA scheme, a human cell-line reference sample, manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific (AcroMetrix), was provided for analysis. This contained many variants, present at frequencies between 1% and 17.9%. METHODS: One hundred and one laboratories submitted results, with a total of 2889 test results on 53 genes being reported. Known polymorphisms, 46/2889 (1.59%) results, were excluded. Variants detected in the seven most commonly reported (and clinically relevant) genes, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, EGFR, PIK3CA, KIT and PDGFRA, are reported here, as these genes fall within the scope of UK NEQAS EQA schemes. RESULTS: Next generation sequencing (NGS) was the most commonly performed testing platform. There were between 5 and 27 validated variants in the seven genes reported here. Eight laboratories correctly reported all five NRAS variants, and two correctly reported all eight BRAF variants. The validated mean variant frequency was lower than that determined by participating laboratories, with single-gene testing methodologies showing less variation in estimated frequencies than NGS platforms. Laboratories were more likely to correctly identify clinically relevant variants. CONCLUSIONS: Over 100 laboratories took the opportunity to test the 'educational reference sample', showing a willingness to further validate their testing platforms. While it was encouraging to see that the most widely reported variants were those which should be included in routine testing panels, reporting of variants was potentially open to interpretation, thus clarity is still required on whether laboratories selectively reported variants, by either clinical relevance or variant frequency.

RAS screening in colorectal cancer: a comprehensive analysis of the results from the UK NEQAS colorectal cancer external quality assurance schemes (2009-2016).

Evidence strongly indicates that extended RAS testing should be undertaken in mCRC patients, prior to prescribing anti-EGFR therapies. With more laboratories implementing testing, the requirement for External Quality Assurance schemes increases, thus ensuring high standards of molecular analysis. Data was analysed from 15 United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS) for Molecular Genetics Colorectal cancer external quality assurance (EQA) schemes, delivered between 2009 and 2016. Laboratories were provided annually with nine colorectal tumour samples for genotyping. Information on methodology and extent of testing coverage was requested, and scores given for genotyping, interpretation and clerical accuracy. There has been a sixfold increase in laboratory participation (18 in 2009 to 108 in 2016). For RAS genotyping, fewer laboratories now use Roche cobas®, pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing, with more moving to next generation sequencing (NGS). NGS is the most commonly employed technology for BRAF and PIK3CA mutation screening. KRAS genotyping errors were seen in ≤10% laboratories, until the 2014-2015 scheme, when there was an increase to 16.7%, corresponding to a large increase in scheme participants. NRAS genotyping errors peaked at 25.6% in the first 2015-2016 scheme but subsequently dropped to below 5%. Interpretation and clerical accuracy scores have been consistently good throughout. Within this EQA scheme, we have observed that the quality of molecular analysis for colorectal cancer has continued to improve, despite changes in the required targets, the volume of testing and the technologies employed. It is reassuring to know that laboratories clearly recognise the importance of participating in EQA schemes.

Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL.

The clinical demand for mutation detection within multiple genes from a single tumour sample requires molecular diagnostic laboratories to develop rapid, high-throughput, highly sensitive, accurate and parallel testing within tight budget constraints. To meet this demand, many laboratories employ next-generation sequencing (NGS) based on small amplicons. Building on existing publications and general guidance for the clinical use of NGS and learnings from germline testing, the following guidelines establish consensus standards for somatic diagnostic testing, specifically for identifying and reporting mutations in solid tumours. These guidelines cover the testing strategy, implementation of testing within clinical service, sample requirements, data analysis and reporting of results. In conjunction with appropriate staff training and international standards for laboratory testing, these consensus standards for the use of NGS in molecular pathology of solid tumours will assist laboratories in implementing NGS in clinical services.

How close are we to standardised extended RAS gene mutation testing? The UK NEQAS evaluation.

AIMS: Since 2008, KRAS mutation status in exon 2 has been used to predict response to anti-EGFR therapies. Recent evidence has demonstrated that NRAS status is also predictive of response. Several retrospective 'extended RAS' analyses have been performed on clinical trial material. Despite this, are we really moving towards such extended screening practice in reality? METHODS: Data were analysed from four consecutive UK National External Quality Assessment Service for Molecular Genetics Colorectal cancer External Quality Assessment schemes (during the period 2014-2016), with up to 110 laboratories (worldwide) participating in each scheme. Testing of four or five tumour samples is required per scheme. Laboratories provided information on which codons were routinely screened, and provided genotyping and interpretation results for each sample. RESULTS: At least 85% of laboratories routinely tested KRAS codons 12, 13 and 61. Over the four schemes, an increasing number of laboratories routinely tested KRAS codons 59, 117 and 146. Furthermore, more laboratories were introducing next generation sequencing technologies. The pattern of 'extended testing' was reassuringly similar for NRAS, although fewer laboratories currently test for mutations in this gene. Alarmingly, still only 36.1% and 24.1% of participating laboratories met the ACP Molecular Pathology and Diagnostics Group and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, respectively, for extended RAS testing in the latest assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations in the UK and USA on extended RAS testing, there has clearly been, based on these results, a delay in implementation. Inadequate testing results in patients being subjected to harmful treatment regimens, which would not be the case, were routine practice altered, in line with evidence-based guidelines.

What's in a Name? A Coordinated Approach toward the Correct Use of a Uniform Nomenclature to Improve Patient Reports and Databases.

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.

Next generation diagnostic molecular pathology: critical appraisal of quality assurance in Europe.

Tumor evaluation in pathology is more and more based on a combination of traditional histopathology and molecular analysis. Due to the rapid development of new cancer treatments that specifically target aberrant proteins present in tumor cells, treatment decisions are increasingly based on the molecular features of the tumor. Not only the number of patients eligible for targeted precision medicine, but also the number of molecular targets per patient and tumor type is rising. Diagnostic molecular pathology, the discipline that determines the molecular aberrations present in tumors for diagnostic, prognostic or predictive purposes, is faced with true challenges. The laboratories have to meet the need of comprehensive molecular testing using only limited amount of tumor tissue, mostly fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin (FFPE), in short turnaround time. Choices must be made for analytical methods that provide accurate, reliable and cost-effective results. Validation of the test procedures and results is essential. In addition, participation and good performance in internal (IQA) and external quality assurance (EQA) schemes is mandatory. In this review, we critically evaluate the validation procedure for comprehensive molecular tests as well as the organization of quality assurance and assessment of competence of diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories within Europe.

External quality assessment of BRAF molecular analysis in melanoma.

The availability of BRAF inhibitors has given metastatic melanoma patients an effective new treatment choice and molecular testing to determine the presence or absence of a BRAF codon 600 mutation is pivotal in the clinical management of these patients. This molecular test must be performed accurately and appropriately to ensure that the patient receives the most suitable treatment in a timely manner. Laboratories have introduced such testing; however, some experience low sample throughput making it critical that an external quality assurance programme is available to help promote a high standard of testing, reporting and provide an educational aspect for BRAF molecular testing. Laboratories took part in three rounds of external quality assessment (EQA) during a 12-month period giving participants a measure of the accuracy of genotyping, clinical interpretation of the result and experience in testing a range of different samples. Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue sections from malignant melanoma patients were distributed to participants for BRAF molecular testing. The standard of testing was generally high but distribution of a mutation other than the most common, p.(Val600Glu), highlighted concerns with detection or reporting of the presence of rarer mutations. The main issues raised in the interpretation of the results were the importance of clear unambiguous interpretation of the result tailored to the patient and the understanding that the treatment is different from that given to other stratified medicine programmes. The variability in reporting and wide range of methodologies used indicate a continuing need for EQA in this field.

Improvement in the quality of molecular analysis of EGFR in non-small-cell lung cancer detected by three rounds of external quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: The clinical need to determine the presence of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in order to make informed decisions for patient treatment has seen the widespread introduction of EGFR molecular testing in many laboratories. To ensure high-quality molecular testing and allow laboratories to externally measure the standard of the service, an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was provided to assess the whole testing process. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded NSCLC tumour sections were distributed to laboratories for routine EGFR molecular testing, and the genotyping accuracy, interpretation of the result and clerical accuracy of the report were independently assessed. RESULTS: Three rounds of assessment have identified many genotyping errors and have highlighted the need for external assessment and education in many testing laboratories. The main issues raised were the importance of accurate genotyping, including the use of common mutation nomenclature, clear unambiguous interpretation of the result, the impact of tumour sample assessment regarding amount of tumour being analysed and the heterogeneity of the sample on the molecular test result. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in all these areas were observed during the progression of the three EQA rounds, however, continuous unacceptably high genotyping error rates demonstrate the clear need for continual external assessment and education in this field.

Guideline on the requirements of external quality assessment programs in molecular pathology.

Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.