Machine Learning and Radiomics Analysis for Tumor Budding Prediction in Colorectal Liver Metastases Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the efficacy of machine learning and radiomics analysis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a hepatospecific contrast agent, in a pre-surgical setting, to predict tumor budding in liver metastases. METHODS: Patients with MRI in a pre-surgical setting were retrospectively enrolled. Manual segmentation was made by means 3D Slicer image computing, and 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics Python package. Balancing was performed and inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the between observer and within observer reproducibility of all radiomics extracted features. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis were carried out. Balancing and feature selection procedures were performed. Linear and non-logistic regression models (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers including decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) were considered. RESULTS: The internal training set included 49 patients and 119 liver metastases. The validation cohort consisted of a total of 28 single lesion patients. The best single predictor to classify tumor budding was original_glcm_Idn obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase with an accuracy of 84%; wavelet_LLH_firstorder_10Percentile was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence portal phase with an accuracy of 92%; wavelet_HHL_glcm_MaximumProbability was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence hepatobiliary excretion phase with an accuracy of 88%; and wavelet_LLH_glcm_Imc1 was obtained in T2-W SPACE sequences with an accuracy of 88%. Considering the linear regression analysis, a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% was obtained using a linear weighted combination of 13 radiomic features extracted from the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase. Moreover, the best classifier was a KNN trained with the 13 radiomic features extracted from the arterial phase of the T1-W VIBE sequence, obtaining an accuracy of 95% and an AUC of 0.96. The validation set reached an accuracy of 94%, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning and radiomics analysis are promising tools in predicting tumor budding. Considering the linear regression analysis, there was a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% using a weighted linear combination of 13 radiomics features extracted from the arterial phase compared to a single radiomics feature.

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.

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.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels. RESULTS: Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

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.

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment.

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.

Cancer Biomarkers in the era of precision oncology: Addressing the needs of patients and health systems.

Cancer Biomarkers are the key to unlocking the promise of precision oncology, selecting which patients will respond to a more personalised treatment while sparing non-responders the therapy-related toxicity. In this paper, we highlight the primacy of cancer biomarkers, but focus on their importance to patients and to health systems. We also highlight how cancer biomarkers represent value for money. We emphasise the need for cancer biomarkers infrastructure to be embedded into European health systems. We also highlight the need to deploy multiple biomarker testing to deliver the optimal benefit for patients and health systems and consider cancer biomarkers from the perspective of cost, value and regulation. Cancer biomarkers must also be situated in the context of the upcoming In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation, which may pose certain challenges (e.g. non-compliance of laboratory developed tests, leading to cancer biomarker shortages and increased costs) that need to be overcome. Cancer biomarkers must be embedded in the real world of oncology delivery and testing must be implemented across Europe, with the intended aim of narrowing, not widening the inequity gap for patients. Cancer patients must be placed firmly at the centre of a cancer biomarker informed precision oncology care agenda.

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.

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.

External quality assessment for EGFR mutations in Italy: improvements in performances over the time.

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes are essential procedures to assess the quality level of laboratories performing molecular testing of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene in non-small cell lung cancer. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology (SIAPEC-IAP) organise EGFR EQA programmes to ensure that the Italian laboratories achieve the quality standard levels required. Comparing the 2011, 2013 and 2015 EGFR EQA schemes, it was possible to observe improvements in the methodologies used and the outcomes. The use of direct sequencing was reduced from 78.7% in 2011 to only 14.1% in 2015, whereas the use of pyrosequencing and real-time PCR increased. The number of rounds in which centres using direct sequencing failed was significantly higher than the number of rounds that failed using other methods, both when analysing each single scheme and when combining the three EQAs together. In 2011 and 2013, about 29% of the participants failed the first phase of the programmes, compared with the 13% of centres failing in 2015, suggesting that the switch to more sensitive and robust methods could allow to increase the percentage of good performers. Although the molecular analyses are performed with good quality in Italy, the continuous education carried out by AIOM and SIAPEC-IAP remains a fundamental tool to maintain this quality level.

The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 the European Medicines Agency included exon 2, 3 and 4 KRAS and NRAS testing for the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients eligible for the therapy with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology and Cytology (SIAPEC) organized an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for CRC to evaluate inter-laboratory consistency and to ensure standardization of the results in the transition from KRAS to all-RAS testing. METHODS: Ten formalin fixed paraffin embedded specimens including KRAS/NRAS (exons 2, 3, 4) and BRAF (codon 600) mutations were validated by three referral laboratories and sent to 88 participant centers. Molecular pathology sample reports were also requested to each laboratory. A board of assessors from AIOM and SIAPEC evaluated the results according to a predefined scoring system. The scheme was composed of two rounds. RESULTS: In the first round 36% of the 88 participants failed, with 23 centers having at least one false positive or false negative while 9 centers did not meet the deadline. The genotyping error rate was higher when Sanger sequencing was employed for testing as compared with pyrosequencing (3 vs 1.3%; p = 0.01; Pearson Chi Square test). In the second round, the laboratories improved their performance, with 23/32 laboratories passing the round. Overall, 79/88 participants passed the RAS EQA scheme. Standardized Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature was incorrectly used to describe the mutations identified and relevant variations were noticed in the genotype specification. CONCLUSION: The results of the Italian RAS EQA scheme indicate that the mutational analyses are performed with good quality in many Italian centers, although significant differences in the methods used were highlighted. The relatively high number of centers failing the first round underlines the fundamental role in continued education covered by EQA schemes.

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.

External quality assessment unravels interlaboratory differences in quality of RAS testing for anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer.

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.

Higher quality of molecular testing, an unfulfilled priority: Results from external quality assessment for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer.

Precision medicine is now a key element in clinical oncology. RAS mutational status is a crucial predictor of responsiveness to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in metastatic colorectal cancer. In an effort to guarantee high-quality testing services in molecular pathology, the European Society of Pathology has been organizing an annual KRAS external quality assessment program since 2009. In 2012, 10 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, of which 8 from invasive metastatic colorectal cancer tissue and 2 artificial samples of cell line material, were sent to more than 100 laboratories from 26 countries with a request for routine KRAS testing. Both genotyping and clinical reports were assessed independently. Twenty-seven percent of the participants genotyped at least 1 of 10 samples incorrectly. In total, less than 5% of the distributed specimens were genotyped incorrectly. Genotyping errors consisted of false negatives, false positives, and incorrectly genotyped mutations. Twenty percent of the laboratories reported a technical error for one or more samples. A review of the written reports showed that several essential elements were missing, most notably a clinical interpretation of the test result, the method sensitivity, and the use of a reference sequence. External quality assessment serves as a valuable educational tool in assessing and improving molecular testing quality and is an important asset for monitoring quality assurance upon incorporation of new biomarkers in diagnostic services.

KRAS early testing: consensus initiative and cost-effectiveness evaluation for metastatic colorectal patients in an Italian setting.

KRAS testing is relevant for the choice of the most appropriate first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Strategies for preventing unequal access to the test should be implemented, but their relevance in the practice is related to economic sustainability. The study adopted the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on several topics. Issues related to execution of KRAS testing were identified by an expert's board and proposed to 108 Italian oncologists and pathologists through two subsequent questionnaires. The emerging proposal was evaluated by decision analyses models employed by technology assessment agencies in order to assess cost-effectiveness. Alternative therapeutic strategies included most commonly used chemotherapy regimens alone or in combination with cetuximab or bevacizumab. The survey indicated that time interval for obtaining KRAS test should not exceed 15 days, 10 days being an optimal interval. To assure the access to proper treatment, a useful strategy should be to anticipate the test after radical resection in patients at high risk of relapse. Early KRAS testing in high risk CRC patients generates incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between 6,000 and 13,000 Euro per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In extensive sensitivity analyses ICER's were always below 15,000 Euro per QALY gained, far within the threshold of 60,000 Euro/QALY gained accepted by regulatory institutions in Italy. In metastatic CRC a time interval higher than 15 days for result of KRAS testing limits access to therapeutic choices. Anticipating KRAS testing before the onset of metastatic disease in patients at high risk does not affect the sustainability and cost-effectiveness profile of cetuximab in first-line mCRC. Early KRAS testing may prevent this inequality in high-risk patients, whether they develop metastases, and is a cost-effective strategy. Based on these results, present joined recommendations of Italian societies of Oncology and Pathology should be updated including early KRAS testing.

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.

KRAS mutations testing in colorectal carcinoma patients in Italy: from guidelines to external quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) that do not carry KRAS mutations. Therefore, KRAS testing has become mandatory to chose the most appropriate therapy for these patients. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In order to guarantee the possibility for mCRC patients to receive an high quality KRAS testing in every Italian region, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology and Cytopathology -Italian division of the International Academy of Pathology (SIAPEC-IAP) started a program to improve KRAS testing. AIOM and SIAPEC identified a large panel of Italian medical oncologists, pathologists and molecular biologists that outlined guidelines for KRAS testing in mCRC patients. These guidelines include specific information on the target patient population, the biological material for molecular analysis, the extraction of DNA, and the methods for the mutational analysis that are summarized in this paper. Following the publication of the guidelines, the scientific societies started an external quality assessment scheme for KRAS testing. Five CRC specimens with known KRAS mutation status were sent to the 59 centers that participated to the program. The samples were validated by three referral laboratories. The participating laboratories were allowed to use their own preferred method for DNA extraction and mutational analysis and were asked to report the results within 4 weeks. The limit to pass the quality assessment was set at 100% of true responses. In the first round, only two centers did not pass (3%). The two centers were offered to participate to a second round and both centers failed again to pass. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this first Italian quality assessment for KRAS testing suggest that KRAS mutational analysis is performed with good quality in the majority of Italian centers.