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.

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.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.