European Real-World Assessment of the Clinical Validity of a CE-IVD Panel for Ultra-Fast Next-Generation Sequencing in Solid Tumors.

Molecular profiling of solid tumors facilitates personalized, targeted therapeutic interventions. The ability to perform next-generation sequencing (NGS), especially from small tissue samples, in a short turnaround time (TAT) is essential to providing results that enable rapid clinical decisions. This multicenter study evaluated the performance of a CE in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, the Oncomine Dx Express Test, on the Ion Torrent Genexus System for detecting DNA and RNA variants in solid tumors. Eighty-two archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue samples from lung, colorectal, central nervous system, melanoma, breast, gastric, thyroid, and soft tissue cancers were used to assess the presence of single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions and deletions (indels), copy number variations (CNVs), gene fusions, and splice variants. These clinical samples were previously characterized at the various academic centers using orthogonal methods. The Oncomine Dx Express Test showed high performance with 100% concordance with previous characterization for SNVs, indels, CNVs, gene fusions, and splice variants. SNVs and indels with allele frequencies as low as 5% were correctly identified. The test detected all the expected ALK, RET, NTRK1, and ROS1 fusion isoforms and MET exon 14-skipping splice variants. The average TAT from extracted nucleic acids to the final variant report was 18.3 h. The Oncomine Dx Express Test in combination with the Ion Torrent Genexus System is a CE-IVD-compliant, performant, and multicenter reproducible method for NGS detection of actionable biomarkers from a range of tumor samples, providing results in a short TAT that could support timely decision- making for targeted therapeutic interventions.

Ultrafast Gene Fusion Assessment for Nonsquamous NSCLC.

Introduction: Gene fusion testing of ALK, ROS1, RET, NTRK, and MET exon 14 skipping mutations is guideline recommended in nonsquamous NSCLC (NS-NSCLC). Nevertheless, assessment is often hindered by the limited availability of tissue and prolonged next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing, which can protract the initiation of a targeted therapy. Therefore, the development of faster gene fusion assessment is critical for optimal clinical decision-making. Here, we compared two ultrafast gene fusion assays (UFGFAs) using NGS (Genexus, Oncomine Precision Assay, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and a multiplex reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (Idylla, GeneFusion Assay, Biocartis) approach at diagnosis in a retrospective series of 195 NS-NSCLC cases and five extrapulmonary tumors with a known NTRK fusion. Methods: A total of 195 NS-NSCLC cases (113 known gene fusions and 82 wild-type tumors) were included retrospectively. To validate the detection of a NTRK fusion, we added five NTRK-positive extrathoracic tumors. The diagnostic performance of the two UFGFAs and standard procedures was compared. Results: The accuracy was 92.3% and 93.1% for Idylla and Genexus, respectively. Both systems improved the sensitivity for detection by including a 5'-3' imbalance analysis. Although detection of ROS1, MET exon 14 skipping, and RET was excellent with both systems, ALK fusion detection was reduced with sensitivities of 87% and 88%, respectively. Idylla had a limited sensitivity of 67% for NTRK fusions, in which only an imbalance assessment was used. Conclusions: UFGFA using NGS and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction approaches had an equal level of detection of gene fusion but with some technique-specific limitations. Nevertheless, UFGFA detection in routine clinical care is feasible with both systems allowing faster initiation of therapy and a broad degree of screening.

Daily Practice Assessment of KRAS Status in NSCLC Patients: A New Challenge for the Thoracic Pathologist Is Right around the Corner.

KRAS mutations are among the most frequent genomic alterations identified in non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinomas (NS-NSCLC), notably in lung adenocarcinomas. In most cases, these mutations are mutually exclusive, with different genomic alterations currently known to be sensitive to therapies targeting EGFR, ALK, BRAF, ROS1, and NTRK. Recently, several promising clinical trials targeting KRAS mutations, particularly for KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC, have established new hope for better treatment of patients. In parallel, other studies have shown that NSCLC harboring co-mutations in KRAS and STK11 or KEAP1 have demonstrated primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Thus, the assessment of the KRAS status in advanced-stage NS-NSCLC has become essential to setting up an optimal therapeutic strategy in these patients. This stimulated the development of new algorithms for the management of NSCLC samples in pathology laboratories and conditioned reorganization of optimal health care of lung cancer patients by the thoracic pathologists. This review addresses the recent data concerning the detection of KRAS mutations in NSCLC and focuses on the new challenges facing pathologists in daily practice for KRAS status assessment.

Perspectives and Issues in the Assessment of SMARCA4 Deficiency in the Management of Lung Cancer Patients.

Lung cancers are ranked third among the cancer incidence in France in the year 2020, with adenocarcinomas being the commonest sub-type out of ~85% of non-small cell lung carcinomas. The constant evolution of molecular genotyping, which is used for the management of lung adenocarcinomas, has led to the current focus on tumor suppressor genes, specifically the loss of function mutation in the SMARCA4 gene. SMARCA4-deficient adenocarcinomas are preponderant in younger aged male smokers with a predominant solid morphology. The importance of identifying SMARCA4-deficient adenocarcinomas has gained interest for lung cancer management due to its aggressive behavior at diagnosis with vascular invasion and metastasis to the pleura seen upon presentation in most cases. These patients have poor clinical outcome with short overall survival rates, regardless of the stage of disease. The detection of SMARCA4 deficiency is possible in most pathology labs with the advent of sensitive and specific immunohistochemical antibodies. The gene mutations can be detected together with other established lung cancer molecular markers based on the current next generation sequencing panels. Sequencing will also allow the identification of associated gene mutations, notably KRAS, KEAP1, and STK11, which have an impact on the overall survival and progression-free survival of the patients. Predictive data on the treatment with anti-PD-L1 are currently uncertain in this high tumor mutational burden cancer, which warrants more groundwork. Identification of target drugs is also still in pre-clinical testing. Thus, it is paramount to identify the SMARCA4-deficient adenocarcinoma, as it carries worse repercussions on patient survival, despite having an exceptionally low prevalence. Herein, we discuss the pathophysiology of SMARCA4, the clinicopathological consequences, and different detection methods, highlighting the perspectives and challenges in the assessment of SMARCA4 deficiency for the management of non-small cell lung cancer patients. This is imperative, as the contemporary shift on identifying biomarkers associated with tumor suppressor genes such as SMARCA4 are trending; hence, awareness of pathologists and clinicians is needed for the SMARCA4-dNSCLC entity with close follow-up on new management strategies to overcome the poor possibilities of survival in such patients.

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.

Real-world assessment of the BRAF status in non-squamous cell lung carcinoma using VE1 immunohistochemistry: A single laboratory experience (LPCE, Nice, France).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines recommend BRAF mutational status assessment in treatment-naive advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients since the presence of a BRAFV600 mutation enables specific BRAF inhibitor treatment. For this purpose, the mutational status needs to be obtained in 10 working days. Herein, we prospectively evaluated the feasibility of systematic assessment of the BRAF status using immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a single institution (LPCE, Nice) at baseline for NSCLC diagnosed. METHODS: 1317 NSCLC were evaluated using BRAF IHC from 2011 to 2019. Initially the BRAF status was prospectively assessed using NGS and/or pyrosequencing in 618 consecutively diagnosed NSCLC patients from 2012 to 2016; BRAFV600E and BRAF nonV600E mutated tumors detected in this cohort were retrospectively evaluated using BRAF IHC. Secondarily, 699 biopsies of NSCLC were prospectively analyzed between 2017 and 2019 using BRAF IHC. BRAF IHC positive tumors were tested using a rapid BRAF specific PCR based assay. RESULTS: Initially, 21/618 (3%) of tumors (15 early and 6 late stage tumors) were BRAFV600E mutated according to the results of NGS and/or pyrosequencing. BRAF IHC was positive in 21/21 of these cases and negative in 51/51 (100 %) BRAF non V600E mutated cases. In the prospective BRAF IHC tested cohort of patients, 24/699 (3%) tumors (13 early and 11 late stage tumors) were positive with VE1 IHC. The BRAF PCR assay was positive in 20/24 (83 %) of these cases. CONCLUSION: BRAFV600E IHC screening of treatment-naïve NSCLC patients is a rapid, specific and very sensitive method which can lead in advanced stage positive NSCLC tumors to a BRAF inhibitor treatment. This test can be routinely integrated into mandatory predictive biomarker 'testing of NSCLC. According to the organization of patient care and the physician's request, this practice can be proposed as an alternative to NGS-based tissue biopsy made at baseline.

Comparison of Three Sequencing Panels Used for the Assessment of Tumor Mutational Burden in NSCLC Reveals Low Comparability.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been proposed as a novel predictive biomarker for the stratification of patients with NSCLC undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. The assessment of TMB has recently been established using large targeted sequencing panels, and numerous studies are ongoing to harmonize TMB assessment. "Correlation" or the coefficient of determination has generally been used to evaluate the association between different panels. We hypothesized that these metrics might overestimate the comparability, especially for lower TMB values. METHODS: A total of 30 samples from patients with NSCLC undergoing ICI treatment were consecutively sequenced using the following three large, targeted sequencing panels: FoundationOne, Oncomine TML, and QiaSeq TMB. The TMB values were compared in the whole patient population and in a subset of patients in which the TMB assessed by FoundationOne was between 5 and 25 mutations/Mb. Prediction of durable clinical benefit (>6 mo with no progression) was assessed using receiver operator characteristics, and optimal cutoff values were calculated using the Youden J statistic. RESULTS: Correlation between the three targeted sequencing panels was strong in the whole patient population (R2 > 0.79) but was dramatically reduced in the subset of patients with TMB of 5 to 25 mutations/Mb. The agreement assessed using the Bland-Altman method was also very low. All panels were able to predict durable clinical benefit in the TMB-high population. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of TMB using the three targeted sequencing panels was possible and predictive of response to ICI treatment, but correlation was an inappropriate measurement to assess the association between the respective panels.

Targeted Assessment of the EGFR Status as Reflex Testing in Treatment-Naive Non-Squamous Cell Lung Carcinoma Patients: A Single Laboratory Experience (LPCE, Nice, France).

BACKGROUND: Assessment of actionable EGFR mutations is mandatory for treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic non-squamous lung carcinoma (NSLC), but the results need to be obtained in less than 10 working days. For rapid EGFR testing, an EGFR-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay is an alternative and simple approach compared to next generation sequencing (NGS). Here, we describe how a rapid EGFR-specific PCR assay can be implemented in a single laboratory center (LPCE, Nice, France) as reflex testing in treatment-naïve NSLC. METHODS: A total of 901 biopsies from NSLC with more than 10% of tumor cells were prospectively and consecutively evaluated for EGFR mutation status between November 2017 and December 2019 using the Idylla system (Biocartis NV, Mechelen, Belgium). NGS was performed for nonsmokers with NSLC wild type for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF and with less than 50% PD-L1 positive cells using the Hotspot panel (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). RESULTS: Results were obtained from 889/901 (97%) biopsies with detection of EGFR mutations in 114/889 (13%) cases using the Idylla system. Among the 562 EGFR wild type tumors identified with Idylla, NGS detected one actionable and one nonactionable EGFR mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and targeted assessment of EGFR mutations in treatment-naïve NSLC can be implemented in routine clinical practice. However, it is mandatory to integrate this approach into a molecular algorithm that allows evaluation of potentially actionable genomic alterations other than EGFR mutations.

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.

Use of the Ion PGM and the GeneReader NGS Systems in Daily Routine Practice for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients: A Practical Point of View Reporting a Comparative Study and Assessment of 90 Patients.

Background: With the integration of various targeted therapies into the clinical management of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become the technology of choice and has led to an increase in simultaneously interrogated genes. However, the broader adoption of NGS for routine clinical practice is still hampered by sophisticated workflows, complex bioinformatics analysis and medical interpretation. Therefore, the performance of the novel QIAGEN GeneReader NGS system was compared to an in-house ISO-15189 certified Ion PGM NGS platform. Methods: Clinical samples from 90 patients (60 Retrospectively and 30 Prospectively) with lung adenocarcinoma were sequenced with both systems. Mutations were analyzed and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, ALK, PIK3CA and ERBB2 genes were compared and sampling time and suitability for clinical testing were assessed. Results: Both sequencing systems showed perfect concordance for the overlapping genes. Correlation of allele frequency was r² = 0.93 for the retrospective patients and r² = 0.81 for the prospective patients. Hands-on time and total run time were shorter using the PGM system, while the GeneReader platform provided good traceability and up-to-date interpretation of the results. Conclusion: We demonstrated the suitability of the GeneReader NGS system in routine practice in a clinical pathology laboratory setting.

High expression of TRF2, SOX10, and CD10 in circulating tumor microemboli detected in metastatic melanoma patients. A potential impact for the assessment of disease aggressiveness.

Circulating tumors cells (CTCs) can be detected in the blood of metastatic melanoma patients (MMPs) both as isolated circulating tumor cells (iCTCs) and circulating tumor microemboli (CTMs), but their clinical significance remains unknown. The aim of this work was to evaluate the prognostic impact in metastatic cutaneous melanoma of CTMs and iCTCs identified by a cytomorphological approach using the isolation by size of tumor cell (ISET) method. We characterized the phenotype of CTCs using anti-PS100, anti-SOX10, anti-CD10, and anti-TRF2 antibodies. 128 MMPs and 37 control healthy individuals with benign nevi were included in this study. Results were compared to the follow-up of patients. 109/128 (85%) MMPs showed CTCs, 44/128 (34%) with 2 to 6 CTMs and 65/128 (51%) with 4 to 9 iCTCs. PS100 expression was homogeneous in iCTCs and heterogeneous in CTMs. SOX10, CD10, and TRF2 were mainly expressed in CTMs. None of the control subjects demonstrated circulating malignant tumor cells. Overall survival was significantly decreased in patients with CTMs, independently of the therapeutic strategies. In conclusion, the presence of CTMs is an independent predictor of shorter survival from the time of diagnosis of MMPs.

Assessment of the PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry: challenges and perspectives for therapeutic strategies in lung cancer patients.

Immunotherapy targeting the PD-L1/PD-1 axis has recently shown spectacular efficacy and promise for the future of patients with metastatic lung cancer. In the setting of second-line treatment of metastatic disease, this therapy has increased overall survival of patients by several months when compared to chemotherapy, both for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC) of the lung. Clinical trials targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have shown a tendency towards higher efficacy if expression of PD-L1 is relatively high, as evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumour samples. Targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis is of crucial importance not only for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but probably also for patients with small cell lung cancer. Nivolumab, an antibody targeting PD-1, has recently received FDA and EMA approval for NSCLC, regardless of the PDL1 expression status (for both tumour types in the USA and for only SCC in EU). However, the need for a biomarker that allows better selection of patients is essential, to improve treatment efficacy and to manage cost of these therapies. Assessment of PD-L1 expression through immunohistochemical staining is advocated by many as one such potential biomarker. This prospect raises several questions, in particular how to define a threshold for positive PD-L1 labelling on biopsy tissue samples, taking into account that certain patients respond to treatment targeting PD-L1/PD-1, despite low or absent immunoreactivity of this biomarker. This review discusses major challenges related to detection of PD-L1 by immunohistochemistry as a companion diagnostic test, along with immune checkpoint blockade treatment of lung cancer.

[Issues and current limits for immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1 status in bronchial biopsies]. / Enjeux et limites actuelles de l'évaluation du statut de PD-L1 par immunohistochimie sur des biopsies bronchiques.

Immunotherapy targeting the PD-L1/PD-1 axis has shown recently some promising results in metastatic lung cancer patients. This treatment seems to be more effective when a high expression of PD-L1 is detected by immunohistochemistry in bronchial biopsies. In this regard, this targeted therapy will be proposed soon in metastatic lung cancer patients. This immunotherapy could be dependent to the immunohistochemical (IHC) assessment of PD-L1 expression, thus considered as a companion diagnostic test. This near perspective poses challenges with regard to the positivity threshold value for PD-L1 expression before therapy administration, the positive cellular compartment (tumour cells and/or immune cells), the percentage of positive cells and the clone which is used. A couple of patients have a good response to treatment targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis despite the absence or a weak PD-L1 expression. However the assessment of PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry will be the only mandatory approach before therapeutic strategies targeting the PD1/PD-L1 axis for lung cancer patients. In this review, the main challenges of using PD-L1 immunohistochemistry as a potential companion diagnostic tool for metastatic lung cancer patient immunotherapy will be discussed.

Measuring the contribution of tumor biobanks to research in oncology: surrogate indicators and bibliographic output.

The number of biobanks, in particular hospital-integrated tumor biobanks (HITB), is increasing all around the world. This is the consequence of an increase in the need for human biological resources for scientific projects and more specifically, for translational and clinical research. The robustness and reproducibility of the results obtained depend greatly on the quality of the biospecimens and the associated clinical data. They also depend on the number of patients studied and on the expertise of the biobank that supplied the biospecimens. The quality of a research biobank is undoubtedly reflected in the number and overall quality of the research projects conducted with biospecimens provided by the biobank. Since the quality of a research project can be measured from the impact factor of resulting publications, this also provides some indication of the quality of a research biobank. It is necessary for the biobank community to define "surrogate" quality indicators, and to establish systems of evaluation in relation to current and future resource requirements. These indicators will help in the realistic assessment of biobanks by institutions and funding bodies, and they will help biobanks demonstrate their value, raise their quality standards, and compete for funding. Given that biobanks are expensive structures to maintain, funding issues are particularly important, especially in the current economic climate. Use of performance indicators may also contribute to the development of a biobank impact factor or "bioresource research impact factor" (BRIF). Here we review four major categories of indicators that appear to be useful for the evaluation of a(m) HITB (quality, activity, scientific productivity, and "visibility"). In addition, we propose a scoring system to measure the chosen indicators.

Usefulness of tissue microarrays for assessment of protein expression, gene copy number and mutational status of EGFR in lung adenocarcinoma.

Specific inhibitors targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can increase survival rates in certain lung adenocarcinoma patients with mutations in the EGFR gene. Although such EGFR-targeted therapies have been approved for use, there is no general consensus among surgical pathologists on how the EGFR status should be tested in lung adenocarcinoma tissues and whether the results of immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and mutational analysis by molecular methods correlate. We evaluated the EGFR status in 61 lung adenocarcinomas by IHC (using total and mutant-specific antibodies against EGFR), by FISH analysis on tissue microarrays (TMAs), and by direct sequencing. The results of each method were compared using χ² and κappa statistics. The sensitivity and negative predictive value estimating the presence of abnormal EGFR for each test was calculated. The results show that, with respect to expression patterns and clinicopathological parameters, the total and mutant-specific EGFR detected by immunohistochemistry and FISH analysis on TMAs are valid and are equivalent to conventional methods performed on whole-tissue sections. Abnormal EGFR was detected in 52.4% of patients by IHC, FISH, and sequencing. The best sensitivity (100%) and negative predictive value (100%) was determined by evaluating the EGFR status with all methods. Testing for molecular changes in EGFR using a single test is likely to underestimate the presence of EGFR abnormalities. Taken together, these results demonstrate the high potential of TMAs to test for the major mechanisms of EGFR activation in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.