Detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinoma: Comparing Cobas 4800 EGFR Assay With Sanger Bidirectional Sequencing

Adequacy of cytology and small biopsy samples obtained with rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) for predictive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer

Complete biomarker workup of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) specimens is essential for appropriate and timely clinical management decisions. This can be challenging to achieve from small cytology and histology specimens, with increasing numbers of molecular and immunohistochemical biomarkers required. We conducted a 5 year retrospective audit of cases at our institution to assess the diagnostic and biomarker testing adequacy rates, particularly those specimens obtained with rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE), performed by a cytopathologist and a cytology scientist or pathology trainee, including all endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspirations (EBUS-TBNA), CT guided lung fine needle aspirations (FNA) and CT guided lung core biopsies. A total of 5,354 cases were identified, of which 92.2% had sufficient material for diagnosis. Of the 1506 cases identified with a recorded diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma or NSCLC, not otherwise specified, 1001 (66.5%) had biomarker testing requested. Sufficient material was available in 89.5% of cases for a complete biomarker workup which included EGFR and KRAS mutational testing (all cases), ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (all cases), and ALK and ROS1 FISH (as required). For EGFR and KRAS mutational testing across both cytology and histology specimens, 99% of cases were sufficient. Of the samples in which a complete biomarker workup was unable to be performed, approximately half were only insufficient due to inadequate numbers of tumour cells for PD-L1 immunohistochemistry. Excluding PD-L1 IHC, 952 (95.1%) of samples obtained with ROSE were sufficient for the remainder of the testing requirements. Next generation sequencing using a 33 gene custom AmpliSeq panel was achieved in up to 72% of cases. In conclusion, small cytology and histology specimens obtained with ROSE are suitable for predictive biomarker testing in NSCLC, although attention needs to be paid to obtaining sufficient cells (>100) for PD-L1 immunohistochemistry.

A profile on cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 as companion diagnostic for first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, there is one molecularly defined subgroup harboring activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR), which results in constitutive activation of its intrinsic kinase activity. Consistent data have demonstrated that these patients have a better outcome when treated with specific tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). Therefore, analysis of EGFR mutational status for treatment guidance is mandatory in this context.

AREAS COVERED

Herein we review the clinical development and technical features of cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 as a companion diagnostic test (CDx) for therapy with EGFR-TKIs, such as gefitinib, in advanced NSCLC. We also discuss the pros and cons of the current version of the CDx and its performance in both tissue and plasma samples.

EXPERT OPINION

The RT-PCR based cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 is a reliable and rapid solution for EGFR mutational status assessment at the time of diagnosis in advanced NSCLC that allows eligibility of patients for EGFR-TKI treatment. This test determines EGFR mutations with acceptable sensitivity in tissue or plasma samples. Pre-analytical considerations like tumor cell content, tumor burden or location of metastasis should be considered to better interpret results in the clinical contexture.

Droplet digital PCR-based EGFR mutation detection with an internal quality control index to determine the quality of DNA

In clinical translational research and molecular in vitro diagnostics, a major challenge in the detection of genetic mutations is overcoming artefactual results caused by the low-quality of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET)-derived DNA (FFPET-DNA). Here, we propose the use of an ‘internal quality control (iQC) index’ as a criterion for judging the minimum quality of DNA for PCR-based analyses. In a pre-clinical study comparing the results from droplet digital PCR-based EGFR mutation test (ddEGFR test) and qPCR-based EGFR mutation test (cobas EGFR test), iQC index ≥ 0.5 (iQC copies ≥ 500, using 3.3 ng of FFPET-DNA [1,000 genome equivalents]) was established, indicating that more than half of the input DNA was amplifiable. Using this criterion, we conducted a retrospective comparative clinical study of the ddEGFR and cobas EGFR tests for the detection of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) FFPET-DNA samples. Compared with the cobas EGFR test, the ddEGFR test exhibited superior analytical performance and equivalent or higher clinical performance. Furthermore, iQC index is a reliable indicator of the quality of FFPET-DNA and could be used to prevent incorrect diagnoses arising from low-quality samples.

Evaluation of the cobas Cdiff Test for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Samples

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are reliable tools for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from unformed (liquid or soft) stool samples. The objective of this study was to evaluate performance of the cobas Cdiff test on the cobas 4800 system using prospectively collected stool specimens from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). The performance of the cobas Cdiff test was compared to the results of combined direct and broth-enriched toxigenic culture methods in a large, multicenter clinical trial. Additional discrepancy analysis was performed by using the Xpert C. difficile Epi test. Sample storage was evaluated by using contrived and fresh samples before and after storage at -20°C. Testing was performed on samples from 683 subjects (306 males and 377 females); 113 (16.5%) of 683 subjects were positive for toxigenic C. difficile by direct toxigenic culture, and 141 of 682 subjects were positive by using the combined direct and enriched toxigenic culture method (reference method), for a prevalence rate of 20.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of the cobas Cdiff test compared to the combined direct and enriched culture method were 92.9% (131/141; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4% to 96.1%) and 98.7% (534/541; 95% CI, 97.4% to 99.4%), respectively. Discrepancy analysis using results for retested samples from a second NAAT (Xpert C. difficile/Epi test; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) found no false-negative and 4 false-positive cobas Cdiff test results. There was no difference in positive and negative results in comparisons of fresh and stored samples. These results support the use of the cobas Cdiff test as a robust aid in the diagnosis of CDI.

The Clinical and Economic Impact of Inaccurate EGFR Mutation Tests in the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Advances in personalized medicine are supported by companion diagnostic molecular tests. Testing accuracy is critical for selecting patients for optimal therapy and reducing treatment-related toxicity. We assessed the clinical and economic impact of inaccurate test results between laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved test for detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Using a hypothetical US cohort of newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and EURTAC (erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer) clinical trial data, we developed a decision analytic model to estimate the probability of misclassification with LDTs compared to a FDA-approved test. We estimated the clinical and economic impact of inaccurate test results by quantifying progression-free and quality-adjusted progression-free life years (PFLYs, QAPFLYs) lost, and costs due to incorrect treatment. The base-case analysis estimated 2.3% (n = 1422) of 60,502 newly diagnosed metastatic NSCLC patients would be misclassified with LDTs compared to 1% (n = 577) with a FDA-approved test. An average of 477 and 194 PFLYs were lost among the misclassified patients tested with LDTs compared to the FDA-approved test, respectively. Aggregate treatment costs for patients tested with LDTs were approximately $7.3 million more than with the FDA-approved test, due to higher drug and adverse event costs among patients incorrectly treated with targeted therapy or chemotherapy, respectively. Invalid tests contributed to greater probability of patient misclassification and incorrect therapy. In conclusion, risks associated with inaccurate EGFR mutation tests pose marked clinical and economic consequences to society. Utilization of molecular diagnostic tests with demonstrated accuracy could help to maximize the potential of personalized medicine.