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.

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.

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.