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.

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.

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.

Ensuring high standards for the delivery of NIPT world-wide: Development of an international external quality assessment scheme.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure accurate and appropriate reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results, the standard of testing should be measured and monitored by participation in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. The findings from international pilot EQAs for NIPT for the common trisomies are presented. METHODS: In the first pilot, three EQA providers used artificially manufactured reference materials to deliver an EQA for NIPT. The second pilot used clinically collected maternal plasma samples. The testing and reporting for aneuploidy status was performed by participating laboratories using routine procedures. Reports were assessed against peer ratified criteria and EQA scores were returned to participants. RESULTS: Forty laboratories participated in the first. Genotyping accuracy was high; four laboratories reported a critical genotyping error (10%) and two reported partial results. Eighty seven laboratories participated in the second pilot using maternal plasma, two reporting a critical genotyping error (2.3%). For both rounds, report content was variable with key information frequently omitted or difficult to identify within the report. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully delivered an international pilot EQA for NIPT. When compared with currently available manufactured materials, EQA for NIPT was best performed using clinically collected maternal plasma. Work is required to define and improve the standard of reporting.

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.

Conversion, correction, and International Scale standardization: results From a Multicenter External Quality Assessment Study for BCR-ABL1 testing.

CONTEXT: Monitoring BCR-ABL1 expression levels relative to clinically validated response criteria on the International Scale (IS) is vital in the optimal management of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, yet significant variability remains across laboratories worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To assess method performance, interlaboratory precision, and different IS standardization modalities in representative laboratories performing routine BCR-ABL1 testing. DESIGN: Fifteen blinded test specimens with 5-level nominal BCR-ABL1 to ABL1 IS percentage ratios ranging from 5% to 0.0005% and 4-level secondary IS reference panels, the ARQ IS Calibrator Panels, were tested by relative quantitative polymerase chain reaction in 15 laboratories in 5 countries. Both raw and IS percentage ratios calculated by using local conversion factors (CFs) or analytic correction parameters (CPs) were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 670 valid positive results were generated. BCR-ABL1 detection was associated with variable ABL1 quality metric passing rates (P < .001) and reached at least 0.01% in 13 laboratories. Intralaboratory precision was within 2.5-fold for all sample levels combined with a relative mean difference greater than 5-fold across laboratories. International Scale accuracy was increased by using both the CF and CP standardization methods. Classification agreement for major molecular response status was 90% after CF conversion and 93% after CP correction, with precision improved by 3-fold for the CP method. CONCLUSIONS: Despite preanalytic and analytic differences between laboratories, conversion and correction are effective IS standardization methods. Validated secondary reference materials can facilitate global diffusion of the IS without the need to perform sample exchange and improve the accuracy and precision of BCR-ABL1 quantitative measurements, including at low levels of residual disease.

Benchmark for evaluating the quality of DNA sequencing: proposal from an international external quality assessment scheme.

BACKGROUND: In the past 15 years, clinical laboratory science has been transformed by the use of technologies that cross the traditional boundaries between laboratory disciplines. However, during this period, issues of quality have not always been given adequate attention. The European Molecular Genetics Quality Network (EMQN) has developed a novel external quality assessment scheme for evaluation of DNA sequencing. We report the results of an international survey of the quality of DNA sequencing among 64 laboratories from 21 countries. METHODS: Current practice for DNA sequence analysis was established by use of an online questionnaire. Participating laboratories were provided with 4 DNA samples of validated genotype. Evaluation of the results included assessing the quality of sequence data, variant genotypes, and mutation nomenclature. To accommodate variations in mutation nomenclature, variants indicated by participants were scored for compliance with 3 acceptable marking schemes. RESULTS: A total of 346 genotypes were analyzed. Of these, 19 (5%) genotyping errors were made. Of these, 10 (53%) were false-negative and 9 (47%) were false-positive results. A further 27 (8%) errors were made in naming mutations. Results were analyzed for 3 indicators of data quality: PHRED quality scores, Quality Read Length, and Quality Read Overlap. Most laboratories produced results of acceptable diagnostic quality as judged by these indicators. The results were used to calculate a consensus benchmark for DNA sequencing against which individual laboratories could rank their performance. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that the consensus benchmark can be used as a baseline against which the aggregate and individual laboratory standard of DNA sequencing may be tracked from year to year.