External Quality Assessment on Molecular Tumor Profiling with Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Methodologies Routinely Used in Clinical Pathology within the COIN Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Identification of tumor-derived variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has potential as a sensitive and reliable surrogate for tumor tissue-based routine diagnostic testing. However, variations in pre(analytical) procedures affect the efficiency of ctDNA recovery. Here, an external quality assessment (EQA) was performed to determine the performance of ctDNA mutation detection work flows that are used in current diagnostic settings across laboratories within the Dutch COIN consortium (ctDNA on the road to implementation in The Netherlands). METHODS: Aliquots of 3 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) plasma samples and 3 artificial reference plasma samples with predetermined mutations were distributed among 16 Dutch laboratories. Participating laboratories were requested to perform ctDNA analysis for BRAF exon 15, EGFR exon 18-21, and KRAS exon 2-3 using their regular circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) analysis work flow. Laboratories were assessed based on adherence to the study protocol, overall detection rate, and overall genotyping performance. RESULTS: A broad range of preanalytical conditions (e.g., plasma volume, elution volume, and extraction methods) and analytical methodologies (e.g., droplet digital PCR [ddPCR], small-panel PCR assays, and next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were used. Six laboratories (38%) had a performance score of >0.90; all other laboratories scored between 0.26 and 0.80. Although 13 laboratories (81%) reached a 100% overall detection rate, the therapeutically relevant EGFR p.(S752_I759del) (69%), EGFR p.(N771_H773dup) (50%), and KRAS p.(G12C) (48%) mutations were frequently not genotyped accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Divergent (pre)analytical protocols could lead to discrepant clinical outcomes when using the same plasma samples. Standardization of (pre)analytical work flows can facilitate the implementation of reproducible liquid biopsy testing in the clinical routine.

A Micro-Costing Framework for Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Dutch Clinical Practice.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising new biomarker with multiple potential applications in cancer care. Estimating total cost of ctDNA testing is necessary for reimbursement and implementation, but challenging because of variations in workflow. We aimed to develop a micro-costing framework for consistent cost calculation of ctDNA testing. First, the foundation of the framework was built, based on the complete step-wise diagnostic workflow of ctDNA testing. Second, the costing method was set up, including costs for personnel, materials, equipment, overhead, and failures. Third, the framework was evaluated by experts and applied to six case studies, including PCR-, mass spectrometry-, and next-generation sequencing-based platforms, from three Dutch hospitals. The developed ctDNA micro-costing framework includes the diagnostic workflow from blood sample collection to diagnostic test result. The framework was developed from a Dutch perspective and takes testing volume into account. An open access tool is provided to allow for laboratory-specific calculations to explore the total costs of ctDNA testing specific workflow parameters matching the setting of interest. It also allows to straightforwardly assess the impact of alternative prices or assumptions on the cost per sample by simply varying the input parameters. The case studies showed a wide range of costs, from €168 to €7638 ($199 to $9124) per sample, and generated information. These costs are sensitive to the (coverage of) platform, setting, and testing volume.