The Current Achievements of Multi-Gene Panel Tests in Clinical Settings for Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Some multi-gene panel tests have been implemented in clinical settings to guide targeted therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Japan. The current performance of multi-gene panel tests under the condition that the Oncomine Dx Target Test (ODxTT) and Amoy Dx® Pan Lung Cancer PCR panel (AmoyDx-multi) are available remains relatively unknown. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with NSCLC, whose FFPE samples were considered for genetic testing. We assessed the submission rates, the success rates, and the driver oncogene detection rates of multi-gene panel tests. A total of 225 patients were histologically newly diagnosed with NSCLC or diagnosed with a recurrence of NSCLC without a previous multi-gene panel test at our institution. Among the 225 patients, the FFPE samples of 212 patients (94.2%) were submitted for multi-gene panel testing, including 191 samples (84.9%) for the ODxTT and 21 samples (9.3%) for the AmoyDx-multi. Among the 212 samples submitted to multi-gene panel tests, the success rate was 99.5% (211/212). The detection rate of driver oncogene alterations for all histologies was 52.4% (111/212), and that for adenocarcinoma was 69.7% (106/152). A favorable submission rate and success rate of multi-gene panel tests were shown, along with a favorable detection rate in recent clinical settings.

Clinical importance of the range of detectable variants between the Oncomine Dx target test and a conventional single-gene test for EGFR mutation.

Although we have experienced some cases with discordant results between the Oncomine Dx target test (ODxTT) and conventional single gene tests for detecting EGFR alterations, the clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in these discordant cases remains little known. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with non-small-cell lung cancer whose FFPE samples were simultaneously submitted for the ODxTT, and a PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in patients with discordant results between the two tests, focusing on the common EGFR mutations. Among 444 successful results, 10 patients had discordant results for common EGFR mutations (9 Ex 19 deletion and 1 Ex 21 L858R mutation), and all of these were detected only by the PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. Among six discordant cases treated with EGFR-TKI, the mutations detected in 3 patients were not included in the list of detectable variants that are reportable by the ODxTT, while the mutations detected in the other 3 patients were included in the list. For all three discordant cases harboring the mutations not reportable by the ODxTT, good clinical responses were demonstrated. However, among the other three discordant cases harboring the mutations reportable by the ODxTT, only one patient had a clinical response with short duration. Among the discordant cases for common EGFR mutations between the ODxTT and the conventional single gene test, there are a certain number of suitable patients responsive to EGFR-TKIs, especially when the cause of the discordant results comes from the difference in the range of detectable variants that are reportable between the tests.

Comparison of the analytical performance of the Oncomine dx target test focusing on bronchoscopic biopsy forceps size in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been implemented in clinical oncology to analyze multiple genes and to guide targeted therapy. Although the pathological diagnosis and biomarker tests for patients with advanced lung cancer have mostly been obtained with small biopsy samples, especially with bronchoscopic approaches, the performance for NGS with respect to the different sizes of biopsy forceps remains little known. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with non-small cell lung cancer, whose FFPE samples were obtained by endobronchial biopsy/transbronchial biopsy and were submitted for the Oncomine Dx Target Test (ODxTT). We compared the analytical performance for ODxTT with respect to the size of biopsy forceps. RESULTS: A total of 103 samples were identified. The success rate of the ODxTT for the group with all samples obtained with small forceps biopsies (70%) was lower than that of the group with some or all samples obtained with standard forceps biopsies (83%), although without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.20). With regard to the reason for unsuccessful analysis, the proportion of the samples which did not pass the nucleic acid concentration threshold in the former group (15%) was higher compared with that of the latter group (4%) (p = 0.08). The proportion of tissue size 4 mm2 or larger in the former group (70%) was lower than that in the latter group (93%) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The analysis of ODxTT for specimens biopsied using only small forceps is prone to be unsuccessful due to an insufficient amount of nucleic acid.

Comparison of the analytical performance between the Oncomine Dx Target Test and a conventional single gene test for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been implemented in clinical oncology to analyze multiple genes and to guide targeted therapy; however, little is known about the performance of the Oncomine Dx Target Test compared with conventional single gene tests for detecting EGFR mutations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Oncomine Dx Target Test compared with a PNA-LNA PCR clamp test to detect EGFR mutations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from whom FFPE samples were simultaneously submitted for the Oncomine Dx Target Test, and a PNA-LNA PCR clamp test using the same specimen. We subsequently compared the analysis success rates and detection rates between the two tests. RESULTS: A total of 116 samples were identified. The success rates and detection rates of EGFR mutations in the total number of samples were 90% and 28%, respectively for the Oncomine Dx Target Test, and 100% and 35% for the PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. The Oncomine Dx Target Test was unable to analyze three samples (2%) due to the samples not passing the nucleic acid concentration threshold, and nine (8%) samples had invalid results. The exon 19 deletion was not detected by the Oncomine Dx Target Test in four cases (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance of the Oncomine Dx Target Test analysis for EGFR mutations may not be comparable with conventional single gene tests due to both invalid and false-negative results. KEY POINTS: Significant findings of the study The success rate of the Oncomine Dx Target Test was significantly lower than the PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. Among the samples successfully analyzed, four exon 19 deletions were not detected by the Oncomine Dx Target Test. What this study adds The analytical performance of the Oncomine Dx Target Test may not be comparable with conventional single gene tests. We should revise the sampling procedures, and review the sample quality assessment methods, to improve the analytical performance.