Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 1: Tissue collection and management.

Biomarker testing is crucial for treatment selection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the quantity of available tissue often presents a key constraint for patients with advanced disease, where minimally invasive tissue biopsy typically returns small samples. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to small sample processing for patients with NSCLC. Generally, tissue biopsy techniques that deliver the greatest quantity and quality of tissue with the least risk to the patient should be selected. Rapid on-site evaluation can help to ensure sufficient sample quality and quantity. Sample processing should be managed according to biomarker testing requirements, because tissue fixation methodology influences downstream nucleic acid, protein and morphological analyses. Accordingly, 10% neutral buffered formalin is recommended as an appropriate fixative, and the duration of fixation is recommended not to exceed 24-48 h. Tissue sparing techniques, including the 'one biopsy per block' approach and small sample cutting protocols, can help preserve tissue. Cytological material (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] cytology blocks and non-FFPE samples such as smears and touch preparations) can be an excellent source of nucleic acid, providing either primary or supplementary patient material to complete morphological and molecular diagnoses. Considerations on biomarker testing, reporting and quality assessment are discussed in Part 2.

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.

Access and quality of biomarker testing for precision oncology in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers are essential for selecting the best therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer. The International Quality Network for Pathology, the European Cancer Patient Coalition and the European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Associations evaluated the access to and quality of biomarker testing across Europe. METHODS: Data sources included surveys of 141 laboratory managers and 1.665 patients, and 58 in-depth interviews with laboratory managers, physicians and payers. Four access metrics (laboratory access, test availability, test reimbursement, test order rate) and three quality metrics (quality scheme participation, laboratory accreditation, test turnaround time) were applied to rank the results. RESULTS: The access to precision medicines is higher in countries with public national reimbursement processes in place. Lack of diagnostic laboratory infrastructure, inefficient organization and/or insufficient public reimbursement narrow the access to single biomarker tests in many European countries. In countries with limited public reimbursement, pharma and patients' out of pocket were the primary funding sources for testing. Uptake of multi-biomarker next generation sequencing (NGS) is highly varied, ranging from 0% to >50%. Financial constraints, a lack of NGS testing capabilities and the failure to include NGS testing in the guidelines represent the main barriers to NGS implementation. The quality of biomarker testing is highest in Western and Northern Europe, with more than 90% of laboratories participating in quality assurance schemes. CONCLUSIONS: Our data clearly indicate the need for a call to action to ensure the clinical implementation of precision medicine in Europe.