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.

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.

Critical Assessment in Routine Clinical Practice of Liquid Biopsy for EGFR Status Testing in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Laboratory Experience (LPCE, Nice, France).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of liquid biopsy using PCR-based assays into routine practice has had a strong impact on the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and is now commonly used for routine testing of EGFR mutations in certain clinical settings. To assess whether the claimed benefits of PCR-based assays hold true in daily practice at a multicenter clinical institution, we assessed how treatment decisions are affected by PCR-based assays for the analysis of EGFR mutations from plasma samples in a centralized laboratory (LPCE, Nice, France). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 345 samples were analyzed using the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and 103 using the Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit over 3 years (395 samples from 324 patients). Eleven plasma samples were validated independently using Cobas at 3 institutions, and 130 samples were analyzed using Stilla digital PCR. Clinical data were collected for 175 (54%) of 324 patients. RESULTS: Cobas was superior to the Therascreen assay and demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Digital PCR showed only 48%, 83%, and 58% concordance with Cobas for exon 19 deletions, L858R mutations, and T790M mutations, respectively. Liquid biopsies helped inform and change treatment when resistance occurred and enabled the detection of EGFR mutations in patients when biopsy tissue results were unavailable. CONCLUSION: PCR-based assays are a fast and convenient test, allowing the detection of primary and secondary EGFR mutations from plasma. Cobas proved to be a reliable test, whereas digital PCR produced too many inconclusive results to be currently recommended as a principal testing device.

Assessment of high-sensitive methods for the detection of EGFR mutations in circulating free tumor DNA from NSCLC patients.

AIM: We assessed the ability of the Therascreen(®) kit (plasma-Therascreen) and of a peptide nucleic acids (PNA)-clamp approach to detect EGFR mutations in plasma-derived circulating-free tumor DNA (cftDNA) from non-small-cell lung cancer patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: cftDNA from 96 patients was analyzed for exon 19 deletions and the p.L858R mutation, using both plasma-Therascreen and PNA-clamp-based assays. RESULTS: None of the 70 EGFR wild-type patients showed EGFR mutations in cftDNA with both techniques (specificity: 100%). In 17/26 EGFR-mutant patients, plasma-Therascreen analysis confirmed the mutation identified in the primary tumor (analytical sensitivity: 65.4%). Similar results were obtained with the PNA-clamp method. CONCLUSION: Both approaches were specific and sensitive for EGFR mutational analysis of cftDNA in non-small-cell lung cancer patients.