Implementation and Clinical Adoption of Precision Oncology Workflows Across a Healthcare Network.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology relies on molecular diagnostics, and the value-proposition of modern healthcare networks promises a higher standard of care across partner sites. We present the results of a clinical pilot to standardize precision oncology workflows. METHODS: Workflows are defined as the development, roll-out, and updating of disease-specific molecular order sets. We tracked the timeline, composition, and effort of consensus meetings to define the combination of molecular tests. To assess clinical impact, we examined order set adoption over a two-year period (before and after roll-out) across all gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary (GI) malignancies, and by provider location within the network. RESULTS: Development of 12 disease center-specific order sets took ~9 months, and the average number of tests per indication changed from 2.9 to 2.8 (P = .74). After roll-out, we identified significant increases in requests for GI patients (17%; P < .001), compliance with testing recommendations (9%; P < .001), and the fraction of "abnormal" results (6%; P < .001). Of 1088 GI patients, only 3 received targeted agents based on findings derived from non-recommended orders (1 before and 2 after roll-out); indicating that our practice did not negatively affect patient treatments. Preliminary analysis showed 99% compliance by providers in network sites, confirming the adoption of the order sets across the network. CONCLUSION: Our study details the effort of establishing precision oncology workflows, the adoption pattern, and the absence of harm from the reduction of non-recommended orders. Establishing a modifiable communication tool for molecular testing is an essential component to optimize patient care via precision oncology.

Diagnostic Value of MAML2 Rearrangements in Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma.

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is often seen in salivary glands and can harbor MAML2 translocations (MAML2+). The translocation status has diagnostic utility as an objective confirmation of the MEC diagnosis, for example, when distinction from the more aggressive adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) is not straightforward. To assess the diagnostic relevance of MAML2, we examined our 5-year experience in prospective testing of 8106 solid tumors using RNA-seq panel testing in combinations with a two-round Delphi-based scenario survey. The prevalence of MAML2+ across all tumors was 0.28% (n = 23/8106) and the majority of MAML2+ cases were found in head and neck tumors (78.3%), where the overall prevalence was 5.9% (n = 18/307). The sensitivity of MAML2 for MEC was 60% and most cases (80%) were submitted for diagnostic confirmation; in 24% of cases, the MAML2 results changed the working diagnosis. An independent survey of 15 experts showed relative importance indexes of 0.8 and 0.65 for "confirmatory MAML2 testing" in suspected MEC and ASC, respectively. Real-world evidence confirmed that the added value of MAML2 is a composite of an imperfect confirmation test for MEC and a highly specific exclusion tool for the diagnosis of ASC. Real-world evidence can help move a rare molecular-genetic biomarker from an emerging tool to the clinic.

Cell-Free HPV DNA Provides an Accurate and Rapid Diagnosis of HPV-Associated Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+HNSCC) is the most common HPV-associated malignancy in the United States and continues to increase in incidence. Current diagnostic approaches for HPV+HNSCC rely on tissue biopsy followed by histomorphologic assessment and detection of HPV indirectly by p16 IHC. Such approaches are invasive and have variable sensitivity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a prospective observational study in 140 subjects (70 cases and 70 controls) to test the hypothesis that a noninvasive diagnostic approach for HPV+HNSCC would have improved diagnostic accuracy, lower cost, and shorter diagnostic interval compared with standard approaches. Blood was collected, processed for circulating tumor HPV DNA (ctHPVDNA), and analyzed with custom ddPCR assays for HPV genotypes 16, 18, 33, 35, and 45. Diagnostic performance, cost, and diagnostic interval were calculated for standard clinical workup and compared with a noninvasive approach using ctHPVDNA combined with cross-sectional imaging and physical examination findings. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of ctHPVDNA for detecting HPV+HNSCC were 98.4% and 98.6%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of a composite noninvasive diagnostic using ctHPVDNA and imaging/physical examination were 95.1% and 98.6%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of this noninvasive approach was significantly higher than standard of care (Youden index 0.937 vs. 0.707, P = 0.0006). Costs of noninvasive diagnostic were 36% to 38% less than standard clinical workup and the median diagnostic interval was 26 days less. CONCLUSIONS: A noninvasive diagnostic approach for HPV+HNSCC demonstrated improved accuracy, reduced cost, and a shorter time to diagnosis compared with standard clinical workup and could be a viable alternative in the future.

Temporary Regulatory Deviations and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) PCR Labeling Update Study Indicate What Laboratory-Developed Test Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Could Look Like.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response necessitated innovations and a series of regulatory deviations that also affected laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). To examine real-world consequences and specify regulatory paradigm shifts, legislative proposals were aligned on a common timeline with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of LDTs and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-orchestrated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) labeling update study. The initial EUA adoption by LDT developers shows that the FDA can have oversight over LDTs. We used efficiency-corrected microcosting of our EUA PCR assay to estimate the national cost of the labeling update study to $0.3 to $1.4 million US dollars. Labeling update study performance data showed lower average detection limits in commercial in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays versus LDTs (32,000 ± 75,000 versus 71,000 ± 147,000 nucleic acid amplification tests/mL; P = 0.04); however, comparison also shows that FDA review of IVD assays and LDTs did not prevent differences between initial and labeling update performance (IVD assay, P < 0.0001; LDT, P = 0.003). The regulatory shifts re-emphasized that both commercial tests and LDTs rely heavily on laboratory competence and procedures; however, lack of performance data on authorized tests, when clinically implemented, precludes assessment of the benefit related to regulatory review. Temporary regulatory deviations during the pandemic and regulatory science tools (ie, reference material) have generated valuable real-world evidence to inform pending legislation regarding LDT regulation.

Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID-19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital.

The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%-71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.