Accreditation, setting and experience as indicators to assure quality in oncology biomarker testing laboratories

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.

Real-world EGFR testing practices for non-small-cell lung cancer by thoracic pathology laboratories across Europe

BACKGROUND

Testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations is an essential recommendation in guidelines for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and is considered mandatory in European countries. However, in practice, challenges are often faced when carrying out routine biomarker testing, including access to testing, inadequate tissue samples and long turnaround times (TATs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the real-world EGFR testing practices of European pathology laboratories, an online survey was set up and validated by the Pulmonary Pathology Working Group of the European Society of Pathology and distributed to 64 expert testing laboratories. The retrospective survey focussed on laboratory organisation and daily EGFR testing practice of pathologists and molecular biologists between 2018 and 2021.

RESULTS

TATs varied greatly both between and within countries. These discrepancies may be partly due to reflex testing practices, as 20.8% of laboratories carried out EGFR testing only at the request of the clinician. Many laboratories across Europe still favour single-test sequencing as a primary method of EGFR mutation identification; 32.7% indicated that they only used targeted techniques and 45.1% used single-gene testing followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), depending on the case. Reported testing rates were consistent over time with no significant decrease in the number of EGFR tests carried out in 2020, despite the increased pressure faced by testing facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. ISO 15189 accreditation was reported by 42.0% of molecular biology laboratories for single-test sequencing, and by 42.3% for NGS. 92.5% of laboratories indicated they regularly participate in an external quality assessment scheme.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the strong heterogeneity of EGFR testing that still occurs within thoracic pathology and molecular biology laboratories across Europe. Even among expert testing facilities there is variability in testing capabilities, TAT, reflex testing practice and laboratory accreditation, stressing the need to harmonise reimbursement technologies and decision-making algorithms in Europe.

External Quality Assessment 2.0: The Importance of a Standardized Implementation of TILs for Daily and Trial Practices

New assays are developed regularly to improve health care for patients. It is important to ensure that assays are performed correctly. Therefore, it is advised to participate in training and proficiency (competence assessment) programs. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) might improve the estimates of response to therapy and prognosis. Herewith, we propose a new training and proficiency program in which each pathologist can train and test themselves regarding TILs (and PDL1) scoring.

The Significance of External Quality Assessment Schemes for Molecular Testing in Clinical Laboratories

Simple Summary

Patients and clinicians often rely on the outcome of laboratory tests, but can we really trust these test results? Good quality management is key for laboratories to guarantee reliable test results. This review focusses on external quality assessment (EQA) schemes which are a tool for laboratories to examine and improve the quality of their testing routines. In this review, an overview of the role and importance of EQA schemes for clinical laboratories is given, and different types of EQA schemes and EQA providers available on the market are discussed, as well as recent developments in the EQA landscape.

Abstract

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes are a tool for clinical laboratories to evaluate and manage the quality of laboratory practice with the support of an independent party (i.e., an EQA provider). Depending on the context, there are different types of EQA schemes available, as well as various EQA providers, each with its own field of expertise. In this review, an overview of the general requirements for EQA schemes and EQA providers based on international guidelines is provided. The clinical and scientific value of these kinds of schemes for clinical laboratories, clinicians and patients are highlighted, in addition to the support EQA can provide to other types of laboratories, e.g., laboratories affiliated to biotech companies. Finally, recent developments and challenges in laboratory medicine and quality management, for example, the introduction of artificial intelligence in the laboratory and the shift to a more individual-approach instead of a laboratory-focused approach, are discussed. EQA schemes should represent current laboratory practice as much as possible, which poses the need for EQA providers to introduce latest laboratory innovations in their schemes and to apply up-to-date guidelines. By incorporating these state-of-the-art techniques, EQA aims to contribute to continuous learning.

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results.

METHODS

A collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018-19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants.

RESULTS

The overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.

PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in non-small-cell lung cancer: unraveling differences in staining concordance and interpretation

Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is accepted as a predictive biomarker for the selection of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated the staining quality and estimation of the tumor proportion score (TPS) in non-small-cell lung cancer during two external quality assessment (EQA) schemes by the European Society of Pathology. Participants received two tissue micro-arrays with three (2017) and four (2018) cases for PD-L1 IHC and a positive tonsil control, for staining by their routine protocol. After the participants returned stained slides to the EQA coordination center, three pathologists assessed each slide and awarded an expert staining score from 1 to 5 points based on the staining concordance. Expert scores significantly (p < 0.01) improved between EQA schemes from 3.8 (n = 67) to 4.3 (n = 74) on 5 points. Participants used 32 different protocols: the majority applied the 22C3 (56.7%) (Dako), SP263 (19.1%) (Ventana), and E1L3N (Cell Signaling) (7.1%) clones. Staining artifacts consisted mainly of very weak or weak antigen demonstration (63.0%) or excessive background staining (19.8%). Participants using CE-IVD kits reached a higher score compared with those using laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) (p < 0.05), mainly attributed to a better concordance of SP263. The TPS was under- and over-estimated in 20/423 (4.7%) and 24/423 (5.7%) cases, respectively, correlating to a lower expert score. Additional research is needed on the concordance of less common protocols, and on reasons for lower LDT concordance. Laboratories should carefully validate all test methods and regularly verify their performance. EQA participation should focus on both staining concordance and interpretation of PD-L1 IHC.

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes assess the performance of predictive biomarker testing in lung and colorectal cancer and have previously demonstrated variable error rates. No information is currently available on the underlying causes of incorrect EQA results in the laboratories. Participants in EQA schemes by the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted to complete a survey if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases. Of the 791 surveys that were sent, 325 were completed including data from 185 unique laboratories on 514 incorrectly analyzed or failed cases. For the digital cases and immunohistochemistry, the majority of errors were interpretation-related. For fluorescence in situ hybridization, problems with the EQA materials were reported frequently. For variant analysis, the causes were mainly methodological for lung cancer but variable for colorectal cancer. Post-analytical (clerical and interpretation) errors were more likely detected after release of the EQA results compared to pre-analytical and analytical issues. Accredited laboratories encountered fewer reagent problems and more often responded to the survey. A recent change in test methodology resulted in method-related problems. Testing more samples annually introduced personnel errors and lead to a lower performance in future schemes. Participation to quality improvement projects is important to reduce deviating test results in laboratories, as the different error causes differently affect the test performance. EQA providers could benefit from requesting root cause analyses behind errors to offer even more tailored feedback, subschemes, and cases.

Managing Deviating EQA Results: A Survey to Assess the Corrective and Preventive Actions of Medical Laboratories Testing for Oncological Biomarkers

Laboratories testing predictive biomarkers in lung and colorectal cancer are advised to participate in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes. This study aimed to investigate which corrective actions were taken by laboratories if predetermined performance criteria were not met, to ultimately improve current test practices. EQA participants from the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted, if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases, to complete a survey. For 72.4% of 514 deviating EQA results, an appropriate action was performed, most often including staff training (15.2%) and protocol revisions (14.6%). Main assigned persons were the molecular biologist (40.0%) and pathologist (46.5%). A change in test method or the use of complex techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, required more training and the involvement of dedicated personnel to reduce future test failures. The majority of participants adhered to ISO 15189 and implemented suitable actions by designated staff, not limited to accredited laboratories. However, for 27.6% of cases (by 20 laboratories) no corrective action was taken, especially for pre-analytic problems and complex techniques. The surveys were feasible to request information on results follow-up and further recommendations were provided.

Biomarker testing in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL

In personalized medicine, predictive biomarker testing is the basis for an appropriate choice of therapy for patients with cancer. An important tool for laboratories to ensure accurate results is participation in external quality assurance (EQA) programs. Several providers offer predictive EQA programs for different cancer types, test methods, and sample types. In 2013, a guideline was published on the requirements for organizing high-quality EQA programs in molecular pathology. Now, after six years, steps were taken to further harmonize these EQA programs as an initiative by IQNPath ABSL, an umbrella organization founded by various EQA providers. This revision is based on current knowledge, adds recommendations for programs developed for predictive biomarkers by in situ methodologies (immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization), and emphasized transparency and an evidence-based approach. In addition, this updated version also has the aim to give an overview of current practices from various EQA providers.

Staining Performance of ALK and ROS1 Immunohistochemistry and Influence on Interpretation in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Selection of non-small-cell lung cancer patients for treatment relies on the detection of expression of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). We evaluated staining performance for different IHC protocols and laboratory characteristics, and their influence on ALK and ROS1 interpretation during external quality assessment schemes between 2015 and 2018. Participants received five formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cases for staining by their routine protocol, whereafter at least two pathologists scored them simultaneously under a multihead microscope and awarded a graded expert staining score (ESS) from 1 to 5 points based on staining quality. European Conformity in Vitro Diagnostic kits (such as D5F3) revealed a better ALK ESS compared with laboratory-developed tests. ESS was indifferent to the applied antibody dilution or a recent protocol change. Lower ESSs were observed for higher antibody incubation times and temperatures. ESS for various ROS1 protocols were largely similar. Overall, for both markers, ESS improved over time and for repeated external quality assessment participation but was independent of laboratory setting or experience. Except for ROS1, ESS positively correlated with laboratory accreditation. IHC stains with lower ESS correlated with increased error rates in ALK and ROS1 interpretation and analysis failures. Laboratory characteristics differently affected staining quality and interpretation, and laboratories should assess both aspects, and less common protocols need improvement in staining performance.

Laboratory reporting on the clinical spectrum of CFTR p.Arg117His: Still room for improvement

BACKGROUND

The clinical spectrum associated with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) variant p.Arg117His is highly variable, ranging from full-blown cystic fibrosis (CF) in a small number of cases to CFTR-related disorders (CFTR-RDs) or no symptoms at all. Therefore, taking into account phenotype variability is essential for interpretation. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes can help laboratories to objectively assess the quality of genotyping and reporting by the laboratory.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal data analysis on laboratory performance regarding the interpretation of p.Arg117His during CF EQA scheme participation. Completeness and accuracy of reporting on two mock clinical cases were each compared over time (case 1: 2005, 2007 and 2012; case 2: 2015 and 2018). These cases concerned subjects compound heterozygous for p.Phe508del and p.Arg117His in cis with 7T, but with different clinical backgrounds (family planning (case 1) versus diagnostic testing for a child (case 2)). Furthermore, we analyzed the influence of previous participations, annual test volume, accreditation status and laboratory setting on overall performance.

RESULTS

Overall performance improved over time, except during the 2007 CF EQA scheme. In addition, previous participations had a beneficial effect on laboratory performance. Accreditation status, annual test volume and laboratory setting did not significantly influence total interpretation scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, laboratories performed well on both cases, although reporting on the variable clinical spectrum of p.Arg117His in cis with 7T and on the disease liability of individual CFTR variants can still improve. Moreover, this study underlined the educational role of CF EQA schemes.

Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples

Background

Correct identification of the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) variant is key to decide on a targeted therapeutic strategy for patients with acquired EGFR TKI resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correct detection of this variant in 12 tumor tissue specimens tested by 324 laboratories participating in External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes.

Methods

Data from EQA schemes were evaluated between 2013 and 2018 from cell lines (6) and resections (6) containing the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) mutation. Adequate performance was defined as the percentage of tests for which an outcome was available and correct. Additional data on the used test method were collected from the participants. Chi-squared tests on contingency tables and a biserial rank correlation were applied by IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

In 26 of the 1190 tests (2.2%) a technical failure occurred. For the remaining 1164 results, 1008 (86.6%) were correct, 151 (12.9%) were false-negative and 5 (0.4%) included incorrect mutations. Correct p.(Thr790Met) detection improved over time and for repeated scheme participations. In-house non-next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques performed worse (81.1%, n = 293) compared to non-NGS commercial kits (85.2%, n = 656) and NGS (97.0%, n = 239). Over time there was an increase in the users of NGS. Resection specimens performed worse (82.6%, n = 610 tests) compared to cell line material (90.9%, n = 578 tests), except for NGS (96.3%, n = 344 for resections and 98.6%, n = 312 for cell lines). Samples with multiple mutations were more difficult compared to samples with the single p.(Thr790Met) variant. A change of the test method was shown beneficial to reduce errors but introduced additional analysis failures.

Conclusions

A significant number of laboratories that offer p.(Thr790Met) testing did not detect this relevant mutation compared to the other EQA participants. However, correct identification of this variant is improving over time and was higher for NGS users. Revising the methodology might be useful to resolve errors, especially for resection specimens with low frequency or multiple variants. EQA providers should include challenging resections in the scheme.

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

Liquid biopsies have emerged as a useful addition to tissue biopsies in molecular pathology. Literature has shown lower laboratory performances when a new method of variant analysis is introduced. This study evaluated the differences in variant analysis between tissue and plasma samples after the introduction of liquid biopsy in molecular analysis. Data from a pilot external quality assessment scheme for the detection of molecular variants in plasma samples and from external quality assessment schemes for the detection of molecular variants in tissue samples were collected. Laboratory performance and error rates by sample were compared between matrices for variants present in both scheme types. Results showed lower overall performance [65.6% (n = 276) versus 89.2% (n = 1607)] and higher error rates [21.0% to 43.5% (n = 138) versus 8.7% to 16.7% (n = 234 to 689)] for the detection of variants in plasma compared to tissue, respectively. In the plasma samples, performance was decreased for variants with an allele frequency of 1% compared to 5% [56.5% (n = 138) versus 74.6% (n = 138)]. The implementation of liquid biopsy in the detection of circulating tumor DNA in plasma was associated with poor laboratory performance. It is important both to apply optimal detection methods and to extensively validate new methods for testing circulating tumor DNA before treatment decisions are made.

Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Aim: Correct identification of RAS gene variants is key for targeted treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Published RAS mutation rates differ and could be influenced by several factors including testing methods. This study aimed to describe the performance of laboratories to correctly identify RAS variants over time and to understand how RAS testing has evolved in Europe. Materials & methods: Misclassification and test failure rates were calculated and related to the used test methodology for 239 unique laboratories participating in external quality assessment for metastatic colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2018. In addition, 33 laboratories completed a survey aiming to obtain more details on their routine testing strategies, number of samples analyzed and RAS mutation rates between 2013 and 2017. Results: The mutation status was correctly analyzed in 96.1% (N = 5471) RAS and BRAF tests. A total of 4.6% (N = 2860) RAS tests included false-negative results. In 1.6% (N = 5562) RAS and BRAF tests, an analysis failure occurred. Misclassifications and technical failures both decreased between 2013 and 2018. The number of next-generation sequencing users increased from 6.9% (N = 130) in 2013 to 44.6% (N = 112) in 2018. Over time, more codons were included in the methodologies, yet 23.2% (N = 112) did not offer full RAS testing (exon 2, 3, 4) in 2018. Based on the survey the overall RAS mutation rate was estimated as 45.2% (N = 27,325). Conclusion: This is the largest observational study reporting RAS mutation rates to-date. There was no trend of RAS mutation rates over time despite having a clear shift to more sensitive tests and increased quality of testing.

Implementation of Novel Molecular Biomarkers for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands: How to Deal With Increasing Complexity

The diagnostic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is changing rapidly with the availability of novel treatments. Despite high-level healthcare in the Netherlands, not all patients with NSCLC are tested with the currently relevant predictive tumor markers that are necessary for optimal decision-making for today's available targeted or immunotherapy. An expert workshop on the molecular diagnosis of NSCLC involving pulmonary oncologists, clinical chemists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology was held in the Netherlands on December 10, 2018. The aims of the workshop were to facilitate cross-disciplinary discussions regarding standards of practice, and address recent developments and associated challenges that impact future practice. This paper presents a summary of the discussions and consensus opinions of the workshop participants on the initial challenges of harmonization of the detection and clinical use of predictive markers of NSCLC. A key theme identified was the need for broader and active participation of all stakeholders involved in molecular diagnostic services for NSCLC, including healthcare professionals across all disciplines, the hospitals and clinics involved in service delivery, healthcare insurers, and industry groups involved in diagnostic and treatment innovations. Such collaboration is essential to integrate different technologies into molecular diagnostics practice, to increase nationwide patient access to novel technologies, and to ensure consensus-preferred biomarkers are tested.

How to Set Up a Molecular Pathology Lab: A Guide for Pathologists

In today's pathology practice, pathologists combine molecular tests with conventional histopathological methods. Pathology laboratories should therefore be designed and operated in accordance with the requirements of molecular testing procedures. While the specifics of the requirements may vary depending on the spectrum of the tests that will be performed, there are several basic criteria that need to be fulfilled for standardization. Adequate space, appropriate equipment and qualified personnel are required to establish a molecular pathology laboratory. One of the most important points that should be taken into consideration while designing a molecular pathology laboratory is to create a plan to prevent contamination. As molecular diagnosis has a major role in treatment decisions, the management of the molecular pathology laboratory is of utmost importance. In this review, the criteria required to establish an optimal molecular pathology laboratory will be reviewed.

European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects

Biomarker analysis for colorectal cancer has been shown to be reliable in Europe with 97% of samples tested by EQA participants to be correctly classified. This study focuses on errors during the annual EQA assessment. The aim was to explore the causes and actions related to the observed errors and to provide feedback and assess any improvement between 2016 and 2017. An electronic survey was sent to all laboratories with minimum one genotyping error or technical failure on ten tumor samples. A workshop was organized based on 2016 survey responses. Improvement of performance in 2017 was assessed for returning participants (n = 76), survey respondents (n = 13) and workshop participants (n = 4). Survey respondents and workshop participants improved in terms of (maximum) analysis score, successful participation, and genotyping errors compared to all returning participants. In 2016, mostly pre- and post-analytical errors (both 25%) were observed caused by unsuitability of the tumor tissue for molecular analysis. In 2017, most errors were due to analytical problems (50.0%) caused by methodological problems. The most common actions taken (n = 58) were protocol revisions (34.5%) and staff training (15.5%). In 24.1% of issues identified no action was performed. Corrective actions were linked to an improved performance, especially if performed by the pathologist. Although biomarker testing has improved over time, error occurrence at different phases stresses the need for quality improvement throughout the test process. Participation to quality improvement projects and a close collaboration with the pathologist can have a positive influence on performance.