Testing for deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability : A focused update.

Testing to detect mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) has become an integral part of the routine diagnostic workup for colorectal cancer (CRC). While MSI was initially considered to be a possible indicator of a hereditary disposition to cancer (Lynch syndrome, LS), today the prediction of the therapy response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is in the foreground. Corresponding recommendations and testing algorithms are available for use in primary diagnosis (reviewed in: Rüschoff et al. 2021).Given the increasing importance for routine use and the expanding indication spectrum of ICI therapies for non-CRCs, such as endometrial, small intestinal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers, an updated review of dMMR/MSI testing is presented. The focus is on the challenges in the assessment of immunohistochemical stains and the value of PCR-based procedures, considering the expanded ICI indication spectrum. A practice-oriented flowchart for everyday diagnostic decision-making is provided that considers new data on the frequency and type of discordances between MMR-IHC and MSI-PCR findings, and the possible role of Next Generation Sequencing in clarifying them. Reference is made to the significance of systematic quality assurance measures (e.g., QuIP MSI portal and multicenter proficiency testing), including regular continued training and education.

[Testing deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability : A focused update. German version]. / Testung auf Mismatch-Reparatur-Defizienz und Mikrosatelliteninstabilität : Eine fokussierte Aktualisierung.

Testing to detect mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) has become an integral part of the routine diagnostic workup for colorectal cancer (CRC). While MSI was initially considered to be a possible indicator of a hereditary disposition to cancer (Lynch syndrome, LS), today the prediction of the therapy response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is in the foreground. Corresponding recommendations and testing algorithms are available for use in primary diagnosis (reviewed in: Rüschoff et al. 2021).Given the increasing importance for routine use and the expanding indication spectrum of ICI therapies for non-CRCs, such as endometrial, small intestinal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers, an updated review of dMMR/MSI testing is presented. The focus is on the challenges in the assessment of immunohistochemical stains and the value of PCR-based procedures, considering the expanded ICI indication spectrum. A practice-oriented flowchart for everyday diagnostic decision-making is provided that considers new data on the frequency and type of discordances between MMR-IHC and MSI-PCR findings, and the possible role of Next Generation Sequencing in clarifying them. Reference is made to the significance of systematic quality assurance measures (e.g., QuIP MSI portal and multicenter proficiency testing), including regular continued training and education.

Proficiency testing of PIK3CA mutations in HR+/HER2-breast cancer on liquid biopsy and tissue.

Precision oncology based on specific molecular alterations requires precise and reliable detection of therapeutic targets in order to initiate the optimal treatment. In many European countries-including Germany-assays employed for this purpose are highly diverse and not prescribed by authorities, making inter-laboratory comparison difficult. To ensure reproducible molecular diagnostic results across many laboratories and different assays, ring trials are essential and a well-established tool. Here, we describe the design and results of the ring trial for the detection of therapeutically relevant PIK3CA hotspot mutations in HR+/HER2-breast cancer tissue and liquid biopsy (LB). For PIK3CA mutation detection in tissue samples, 43 of the 54 participants (80%) provided results compliant with the reference values. Participants using NGS-based assays showed higher success rate (82%) than those employing Sanger sequencing (57%). LB testing was performed with two reference materials differing in the length of the mutated DNA fragments. Most participants used NGS-based or commercial real-time PCR assays (70%). The 167 bp fragments led to a successful PIK3CA mutation detection by only 31% of participants whereas longer fragments of 490 bp were detectable even by non-optimal assays (83%). In conclusion, the first ring trial for PIK3CA mutation detection in Germany showed that PIK3CA mutation analysis is broadly established for tissue samples and that NGS-based tests seem to be more suitable than Sanger sequencing. PIK3CA mutation detection in LB should be carried out with assays specifically designed for this purpose in order to avoid false-negative results.

MSI testing : What's new? What should be considered?

Based on new trial data regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the detection of high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or underlying deficient mismatch repair protein (dMMR) is now becoming increasingly important for predicting treatment response. For the first time, a PD­1 ICI (pembrolizumab) has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for first-line treatment of advanced (stage IV) dMMR/MSI­H colorectal cancer (CRC). Further indications, such as dMMR/MSI­H endometrial carcinoma (EC), have already succeeded (Dostarlimab, 2nd line treatment) and others are expected to follow before the end of 2021. The question of optimal testing in routine diagnostics should therefore be re-evaluated. Based on a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the widely available methods (immunohistochemistry and PCR), a test algorithm is proposed that allows quality assured, reliable, and cost-effective dMMR/MSI­H testing. For CRC and EC, testing is therefore already possible at the primary diagnosis stage, in line with international recommendations (NICE, NCCN). The clinician is therefore enabled from the outset to consider not only the predictive but also the prognostic and predispositional implications of such a test when counseling patients and formulating treatment recommendations. As a basis for quality assurance, participation in interlaboratory comparisons and continuous documentation of results (e.g., QuIP Monitor) are strongly recommended.

Status quo of ALK testing in lung cancer: results of an EQA scheme based on in-situ hybridization, immunohistochemistry, and RNA/DNA sequencing.

With this external quality assessment (EQA) scheme, we aim to investigate the diagnostic performance of the currently available methods for the detection of ALK alterations in non-small cell lung cancer on a national scale, namely, in situ hybridization (ISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and RNA/DNA sequencing (NGS). The EQA scheme cohort consisted of ten specimens, including four ALK positive and six ALK negative samples, which were thoroughly pretested using IHC, ISH, and RNA/DNA NGS. Unstained tumor sections were provided to the 57 participants, and the results were retrieved via an online questionnaire. ISH was used by 29, IHC by 38, and RNA/DNA sequencing by 19 participants. Twenty-eight institutions (97%) passed the ring trial using ISH, 33 (87%) by using IHC, and 18 (95%) by using NGS. The highest sensitivity and interrater agreement (Fleiss ' kappa) was observed for RNA/DNA sequencing (99%, 0.975), followed by ISH (94%, 0.898) and IHC (92%, 0.888). However, the proportion of samples that were not evaluable due to bad tissue quality was also higher for RNA/DNA sequencing (4%) compared with ISH (0.7%) and IHC (0.5%). While all three methods produced reliable results between the different institutions, the highest sensitivity and concordance were observed for RNA/DNA sequencing. These findings encourage the broad implementation of this method in routine diagnostic, although the application might be limited by technical capacity, economical restrictions, and tissue quality of formalin-fixed samples.

[MSI testing : What is new? What should be considered? German version]. / MSI-Testung : Was ist neu? Was ist zu beachten?

Based on new trial data regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the detection of high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or underlying deficient mismatch repair protein (dMMR) is now becoming increasingly important for predicting treatment response. For the first time, a PD­1 ICI (pembrolizumab) has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for first-line treatment of advanced (stage IV) dMMR/MSI­H colorectal cancer (CRC). Further indications, such as dMMR/MSI­H endometrial carcinoma (EC), have already succeeded (Dostarlimab, 2nd line treatment) and others are expected to follow before the end of 2021. The question of optimal testing in routine diagnostics should therefore be re-evaluated. Based on a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the widely available methods (immunohistochemistry and PCR), a test algorithm is proposed that allows quality assured, reliable, and cost-effective dMMR/MSI­H testing. For CRC and EC, testing is therefore already possible at the primary diagnosis stage, in line with international recommendations (NICE, NCCN). The clinician is therefore enabled from the outset to consider not only the predictive but also the prognostic and predispositional implications of such a test when counseling patients and formulating treatment recommendations. As a basis for quality assurance, participation in interlaboratory comparisons and continuous documentation of results (e.g., QuIP Monitor) are strongly recommended.

[Quality assurance in dMMR and MSI diagnostics]. / Qualitätssicherung in der dMMR- und MSI-Diagnostik.

Deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) have therapeutic relevance not only for colorectal carcinomas but also for carcinomas of other entities (endometrium, biliary tract, pancreas). In order to guarantee the knowledge and good technical quality necessary for adequate implementation of the corresponding analyses in pathology institutes, the Pathology Quality Assurance Initiative ("Die Qualitätssicherung-Initiative Pathologie") has been offering proficiency tests (PT) for years. It has been shown for the dMMR PT that various antibody clones from different manufacturers provide comparable results in immunohistological examinations, except for slight variations. The difficulty lies in the staining protocol (intensity of staining) and the interpretation of the staining results. The molecular pathological MSI PT has shown a positive trend at a high-quality level over the last three years. Success rates increased from 89 (2018) to 97% (2019/2020). The choice of assay, whether commercial or in-house tests with the designated cutoffs for this purpose, has not been shown to have a significant impact on the PTs in the selected EQA samples.

[Quality assurance in diagnostic in situ hybridization-experience of QuIP]. / Qualitätssicherung in der diagnostischen In-situ-Hybridisierung ­ Erfahrungen der QuIP.

The Quality Assurance Initiative Pathology (QuIP) gives pathologists the opportunity to check the methodological processes of immunohistological and molecular diagnostics in a result-oriented manner and obtain a certificate reflecting the quality. For in situ hybridization (ISH), 5 round robin tests were organized in 2019, two recurrent (HER2-ISH gastric carcinomas and HER2-ISH breast carcinomas) and three prototypical (ROS1-NSCLC, ALK1-NSCLC, NTRK). The different round robin tests, which were provided by QuIP, are based on the development in diagnostics and the importance of the therapeutic relevance of the molecules which are tested. The results of the round robin tests in 2019 showed a sensitivity of at least 94.4%, a specificity of at least 96.6%, and a success rate of 85-99%. This reflected the high standard of quality of the round robin test and the participating institutes.

Quality assurance in neuropathology: Experiences from the round robin trials on IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation testing launched by the Quality Assurance Initiative Pathology (QuIP) in 2018 and 2019.

We here report on the first neuropathological round robin trials initiated by the Quality Assurance Initiative Pathology (QuIP) in Germany in the years 2018 and 2019. Testing services as external laboratory controls were offered for IDH1-R132H immunohistochemistry in 2018 followed by a molecular trial for IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in 2019 including the rare mutational variants. Also in 2019, a trial on MGMT promoter methylation testing was offered. On a national scale, trial offers were well received with around 40 participating institutions. The international announcement of the molecular IDH1/IDH2 mutational trial achieved only moderate European outspread. Success rates in all three trials were excellent (IDH1-R132H immunohistochemistry 2018: 94%, 18 out of 20 possible points required; IDH1/IDH2 mutational status 2019: 100%, 19 out of 20 possible points required; MGMT promoter methylation 2019: 94%, 19 out of 20 possible points required) indicating that quality standards are high in the broad majority of the institutions. Trial participation also involved filling in a questionnaire asking for background information on local testing procedures. We here present a first assessment of the information collected providing unique insights in the landscape of molecular testing in neuropathology. Derived from this information we identify future challenges and provide an outlook on the development of quality assurance in the field of neuropathology.

NTRK testing: First results of the QuiP-EQA scheme and a comprehensive map of NTRK fusion variants and their diagnostic coverage by targeted RNA-based NGS assays.

Gene fusions involving the three neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase genes NTRK1, NTRK2, or NTRK3 were identified as oncogenic drivers in many cancer types. Two small molecule inhibitors have been tested in clinical trials recently and require the detection of a NTRK fusion gene prior to therapeutic application. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) assays are commonly used for diagnostic profiling of gene fusions. In the presented study we applied an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme in order to investigate the suitability of FISH and RNA-/DNA-based tNGS for detection of NTRK fusions in a multinational and multicentric ring trial. In total 27 participants registered for this study. Nine institutions took part in the FISH-based and 18 in the NGS-based round robin test, the latter additionally subdivided into low-input and high-input NGS methods (regarding nucleic acid input). Regardless of the testing method applied, all participants received tumor sections of 10 formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks for in situ hybridization or RNA/DNA extraction, and the results were submitted via an online questionnaire. For FISH testing, eight of nine (88.8%) participants, and for NGS-based testing 15 of 18 (83.3%) participants accomplished the round robin test successfully. The overall high success rate demonstrates that FISH- and tNGS-based NTRK testing can be well established in a routine diagnostic setting. Complementing this dataset, we provide an updated in silico analysis on the coverage of more than 150 NTRK fusion variants by several commercially available RNA-based tNGS panels.

Establishing guidelines to harmonize tumor mutational burden (TMB): in silico assessment of variation in TMB quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase I of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project.

BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, demonstrates predictive biomarker potential for the identification of patients with cancer most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. TMB is optimally calculated by whole exome sequencing (WES), but next-generation sequencing targeted panels provide TMB estimates in a time-effective and cost-effective manner. However, differences in panel size and gene coverage, in addition to the underlying bioinformatics pipelines, are known drivers of variability in TMB estimates across laboratories. By directly comparing panel-based TMB estimates from participating laboratories, this study aims to characterize the theoretical variability of panel-based TMB estimates, and provides guidelines on TMB reporting, analytic validation requirements and reference standard alignment in order to maintain consistency of TMB estimation across platforms. METHODS: Eleven laboratories used WES data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Multi-Center Mutation calling in Multiple Cancers (MC3) samples and calculated TMB from the subset of the exome restricted to the genes covered by their targeted panel using their own bioinformatics pipeline (panel TMB). A reference TMB value was calculated from the entire exome using a uniform bioinformatics pipeline all members agreed on (WES TMB). Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between WES and panel TMB for all 32 cancer types combined and separately. Variability in panel TMB values at various WES TMB values was also quantified using 95% prediction limits. RESULTS: Study results demonstrated that variability within and between panel TMB values increases as the WES TMB values increase. For each panel, prediction limits based on linear regression analyses that modeled panel TMB as a function of WES TMB were calculated and found to approximately capture the intended 95% of observed panel TMB values. Certain cancer types, such as uterine, bladder and colon cancers exhibited greater variability in panel TMB values, compared with lung and head and neck cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing uptake of TMB as a predictive biomarker in the clinic creates an urgent need to bring stakeholders together to agree on the harmonization of key aspects of panel-based TMB estimation, such as the standardization of TMB reporting, standardization of analytical validation studies and the alignment of panel-based TMB values with a reference standard. These harmonization efforts should improve consistency and reliability of panel TMB estimates and aid in clinical decision-making.

Harmonization and Standardization of Panel-Based Tumor Mutational Burden Measurement: Real-World Results and Recommendations of the Quality in Pathology Study.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a quantitative assessment of the number of somatic mutations within a tumor genome. Immunotherapy benefit has been associated with TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing (wesTMB) and gene panel sequencing (psTMB). The initiatives of Quality in Pathology (QuIP) and Friends of Cancer Research have jointly addressed the need for harmonization among TMB testing options in tissues. This QuIP study identifies critical sources of variation in psTMB assessment. METHODS: A total of 20 samples from three tumor types (lung adenocarcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and colon adenocarcinoma) with available WES data were analyzed for psTMB using six panels across 15 testing centers. Interlaboratory and interplatform variation, including agreement on variant calling and TMB classification, were investigated. Bridging factors to transform psTMB to wesTMB values were empirically derived. The impact of germline filtering was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen samples had low interlaboratory and interpanel psTMB variation, with 87.7% of pairwise comparisons revealing a Spearman's ρ greater than 0.6. A wesTMB cut point of 199 missense mutations projected to psTMB cut points between 7.8 and 12.6 mutations per megabase pair; the corresponding psTMB and wesTMB classifications agreed in 74.9% of cases. For three-tier classification with cut points of 100 and 300 mutations, agreement was observed in 76.7%, weak misclassification in 21.8%, and strong misclassification in 1.5% of cases. Confounders of psTMB estimation included fixation artifacts, DNA input, sequencing depth, genome coverage, and variant allele frequency cut points. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence that all evaluated panels can be used to estimate TMB in a routine diagnostic setting and identifies important parameters for reliable tissue TMB assessment that require careful control. As complex or composite biomarkers beyond TMB are likely playing an increasing role in therapy prediction, the efforts by QuIP and Friends of Cancer Research also delineate a general framework and blueprint for the evaluation of such assays.

Testing NTRK testing: Wet-lab and in silico comparison of RNA-based targeted sequencing assays.

NTRK fusions involving three neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase genes NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 and a variety of fusion partners were identified as oncogenic drivers across many cancer types. Drugs that target the chimeric protein product require the identification of the underlying gene fusion. This advocates the diagnostic use of molecular assays ranging from fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)/Sanger approaches to targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). Immunohistochemistry may be used as a screening tool and adjunct diagnostic assay in this context. Although FISH and RT-PCR/Sanger approaches are widely adopted in routine diagnostics, current experience with targeted RNA-based NGS is limited. Here, we report on the analysis of major assays (TruSight TST170 and TruSight RNA Fusion [Illumina]; Archer FusionPlex Solid Tumor, Archer FusionPlex Lung, and Archer FusionPlex Oncology [Archer]; Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3 RNA and Oncomine Focus RNA [Thermo Fisher Scientific]) that are commercially available. The data set includes performance results of a multicentric comparative wet-lab study as well as an in silico analysis on the ability to detect the broad range of NTRK fusions reported until now. A test algorithm that reflects assay methodology is provided. This data will support implementation of targeted RNA sequencing in routine diagnostics and inform screening and testing strategies that have been brought forward.

Next generation sequencing of lung adenocarcinoma subtypes with intestinal differentiation reveals distinct molecular signatures associated with histomorphology and therapeutic options.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a better understanding of the molecular landscape of primary lung adenocarcinomas with intestinal differentiation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas (IMA) and seven pulmonary enteric adenocarcinomas (PEAD) were included in this study. Furthermore, we analyzed six pulmonary colloid adenocarcinomas (CAD), including one primary tumor, one metastasis, and two sample pairs consisting of the primary colloid lung tumor and a matching metastasis and an acinar component, respectively. All samples were characterized using immunohistochemistry (TTF-1, CK7, CK20, CDX2, Ki-67, ALK and PD-L1) and a next generation sequencing panel covering 404 cancer-related genes (FoundationOne® gene panel). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: While Ki-67 expression was comparably low in IMA (range: 8-15%) and in primary CAD (range: 5-8%), we observed considerably higher proliferation rates in the non-colloid tumor compartment (16%) and metastases (72%) from CAD, as well as in the PEAD-group (36-71%). The overall tumor mutational burden was lowest in IMA (2.5 mutations per megabase), intermediate in CAD (5.8 mutations per megabase) and highest in PEAD (16.8 mutations per megabase). KRAS mutations were frequent in all three tumor subtypes, but TP53 mutations were mostly limited to PEAD. While chromosomal alterations were rare in IMA, we discovered MYC amplifications in three of four CAD. Comparing primary and metastatic CAD, we observed the acquisition of multiple mutations and chromosomal alterations. PEAD had a variety of chromosomal alterations, including two cases with RICTOR amplification. PD-L1 expression (20%, 50% and 80% of tumor cells) was limited to three PEAD samples, only. In conclusion, we provide a detailed insight into the molecular alterations across and within the different subtypes of pulmonary adenocarcinomas with intestinal differentiation. From a clinical perspective, we provide data on potential treatment strategies for patients with PEAD, including immunotherapy.