Assessment of Different Circulating Tumor Cell Platforms for Uveal Melanoma: Potential Impact for Future Routine Clinical Practice.

Liquid biopsy and circulating tumor cell (CTC) screening has gained interest over the last two decades for detecting almost all solid malignancies. To date, the major limitation in terms of the applicability of CTC screening in daily clinical practice is the lack of reproducibility due to the high number of platforms available that use various technologies (e.g., label-dependent versus label-free detection). Only a few studies have compared different CTC platforms. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of four commercially available CTC platforms (Vortex (VTX-1), ClearCell FX, ISET, and Cellsearch) for the detection and identification of uveal melanoma cells (OMM 2.3 cell line). Tumor cells were seeded in RPMI medium and venous blood from healthy donors, and then processed similarly using these four platforms. Melan-A immunochemistry was performed to identify tumor cells, except when the Cellsearch device was used (automated identification). The mean overall recovery rates (with mean recovered cells) were 39.2% (19.92), 22.2% (11.31), 8.9% (4.85), and 1.1% (0.20) for the ISET, Vortex (VTX-1), ClearCell FX, and CellSearch platforms, respectively. Although paramount, the recovery rate is not sufficient to assess a CTC platform. Other parameters, such as the purpose for using a platform (diagnosis, genetics, drug sensitivity, or patient-derived xenograft models), reproducibility, purity, user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and ergonomics, should also be considered before they can be used in daily clinical practice and are discussed in this article.

Setting-Up a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Genome Assessment by Next-Generation Sequencing in an Academic Hospital Center (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France).

Introduction: Aside from the reverse transcription-PCR tests for the diagnosis of the COVID-19 in routine clinical care and population-scale screening, there is an urgent need to increase the number and the efficiency for full viral genome sequencing to detect the variants of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 variants assessment should be easily, rapidly, and routinely available in any academic hospital. Materials and Methods: SARS-CoV-2 full genome sequencing was performed retrospectively in a single laboratory (LPCE, Louis Pasteur Hospital, Nice, France) in 103 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. An automated workflow used the Ion Ampliseq SARS-CoV-2 panel on the Genexus Sequencer. The analyses were made from nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) (n = 64) and/or saliva (n = 39) samples. All samples were collected in the metropolitan area of the Nice city (France) from September 2020 to March 2021. Results: The mean turnaround time between RNA extraction and result reports was 30 h for each run of 15 samples. A strong correlation was noted for the results obtained between NSP and saliva paired samples, regardless of low viral load and high (>28) Ct values. After repeated sequencing runs, complete failure of obtaining a valid sequencing result was observed in 4% of samples. Besides the European strain (B.1.160), various variants were identified, including one variant of concern (B.1.1.7), and different variants under monitoring. Discussion: Our data highlight the current feasibility of developing the SARS-CoV-2 next-generation sequencing approach in a single hospital center. Moreover, these data showed that using the Ion Ampliseq SARS-CoV-2 Assay, the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing is rapid and efficient not only in NSP but also in saliva samples with a low viral load. The advantages and limitations of this setup are discussed.

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.