External Quality Assessment Schemes for Biomarker Testing in Oncology: Comparison of Performance between Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded-Tissue and Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Plasma

External Quality Assessment on Molecular Tumor Profiling with Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Methodologies Routinely Used in Clinical Pathology within the COIN Consortium

BACKGROUND

Identification of tumor-derived variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has potential as a sensitive and reliable surrogate for tumor tissue-based routine diagnostic testing. However, variations in pre(analytical) procedures affect the efficiency of ctDNA recovery. Here, an external quality assessment (EQA) was performed to determine the performance of ctDNA mutation detection work flows that are used in current diagnostic settings across laboratories within the Dutch COIN consortium (ctDNA on the road to implementation in The Netherlands).

METHODS

Aliquots of 3 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) plasma samples and 3 artificial reference plasma samples with predetermined mutations were distributed among 16 Dutch laboratories. Participating laboratories were requested to perform ctDNA analysis for BRAF exon 15, EGFR exon 18-21, and KRAS exon 2-3 using their regular circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) analysis work flow. Laboratories were assessed based on adherence to the study protocol, overall detection rate, and overall genotyping performance.

RESULTS

A broad range of preanalytical conditions (e.g., plasma volume, elution volume, and extraction methods) and analytical methodologies (e.g., droplet digital PCR [ddPCR], small-panel PCR assays, and next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were used. Six laboratories (38%) had a performance score of >0.90; all other laboratories scored between 0.26 and 0.80. Although 13 laboratories (81%) reached a 100% overall detection rate, the therapeutically relevant EGFR p.(S752_I759del) (69%), EGFR p.(N771_H773dup) (50%), and KRAS p.(G12C) (48%) mutations were frequently not genotyped accurately.

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent (pre)analytical protocols could lead to discrepant clinical outcomes when using the same plasma samples. Standardization of (pre)analytical work flows can facilitate the implementation of reproducible liquid biopsy testing in the clinical routine.

Critical Factors in the Analytical Work Flow of Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Molecular Profiling

BACKGROUND

Liquid biopsy testing, especially molecular tumor profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in cell-free plasma, has received increasing interest in recent years as it serves as a reliable alternative for the detection of tumor-specific aberrations to guide treatment decision-making in oncology. Many (commercially available) applications have been developed, however, broad divergences in (pre)analytical work flows and lack of universally applied guidelines impede routine clinical implementation. In this review, critical factors in the blood-based ctDNA liquid biopsy work flow are evaluated.

CONTENT

In the preanalytical phase, several aspects (e.g., blood collection tubes [BCTs], plasma processing, and extraction method) affect the quantity and quality of the circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) applicable for subsequent molecular analyses and should meet certain standards to be applied in diagnostic work flows. Analytical considerations, such as analytical input and choice of assay, might vary based on the clinical application (i.e., screening, primary diagnosis, minimal residual disease [MRD], response monitoring, and resistance identification). In addition to practical procedures, variant interpretation and reporting ctDNA results should be harmonized. Collaborative efforts in (inter)national consortia and societies are essential for the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in attempts to standardize the plasma-based ctDNA analysis work flow.

SUMMARY

Development of universally applicable guidelines regarding the critical factors in liquid biopsy testing are necessary to pave the way to clinical implementation for routine diagnostics.

Pre-analytical conditions and implementation of quality control steps in liquid biopsy analysis

Over the last decade, great advancements have been made in the field of liquid biopsy through extensive research and the development of new technologies that facilitate the use of liquid biopsy for cancer patients. This is shown by the numerous liquid biopsy tests that gained clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in recent years. Liquid biopsy has significantly altered cancer treatment by providing clinicians with powerful and immediate information about therapeutic decisions. However, the clinical integration of liquid biopsy is still challenging and there are many critical factors to consider prior to its implementation into routine clinical practice. Lack of standardization due to technical challenges and the definition of the clinical utility of specific assays further complicates the establishment of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in liquid biopsy. Harmonization of laboratories to established guidelines is of major importance to overcome inter-lab variabilities observed. Quality control assessment in diagnostic laboratories that offer liquid biopsy testing will ensure that clinicians can base their therapeutic decisions on robust results. The regular participation of laboratories in external quality assessment schemes for liquid biopsy testing aims to promptly pinpoint deficiencies and efficiently educate laboratories to improve their quality of services. Accreditation of liquid biopsy diagnostic laboratories based on the ISO15189 standard in Europe or by CLIA/CAP accreditation procedures in the US is the best way to achieve the adaptation of liquid biopsy into the clinical setting by assuring reliable results for the clinicians and their cancer patients. Nowadays, various organizations from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies collaborate to set a framework that will include all procedures from the pre-analytical phase and the analytical process to the final interpretation of results. In this review, we underline several challenges in the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) concerning standardization of protocols, quality control assessment, harmonization of laboratories, and compliance to specific guidelines that need to be thoroughly considered before liquid biopsy enters the clinic.

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.

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.

Detection of EGFR mutations in liquid biopsy samples using allele-specific quantitative PCR: A comparative real-world evaluation of two popular diagnostic systems

PURPOSE

The detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is an auxiliary tool for the molecular diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially when an adequate tumor tissue specimen cannot be obtained. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of two commonly used in vitro diagnostic-certified allele-specific quantitative PCR assays for detecting plasma cfDNA EGFR mutations.

METHODS

We analyzed EGFR mutations in plasma cfDNA from 90 NSCLC patients (stages I-IV) before treatment (n ​= ​60) and after clinical progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n ​= ​30) using the cobas EGFR mutation test v2 (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) and therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen GmbH).

RESULTS

There was higher concordance between plasma cfDNA and matched tumor tissue EGFR mutations with cobas (66.67%) compared with therascreen (55.93%). The concordance rate increased to 90.00% with cobas (Cohen's kappa coefficient, κ ​= ​0.80; p ​< ​0.0001) and 73.33% with therascreen (κ ​= ​0.49; p ​= ​0.0009) in advanced NSCLC patients. In treatment-naïve patients, cobas was superior to therascreen (sensitivity: 82.35% vs. 52.94%; specificity: 100% vs. 100%). In patients with clinical progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, EGFR exon 20 p.T790M was detected in 30% and 23% of cfDNA samples by cobas and therascreen, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cobas was superior to therascreen for detection of plasma EGFR mutations in advanced NSCLC. Plasma cfDNA EGFR mutation analysis is complex; therefore, the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available assays should be validated.