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.

A stitch in time saves nine: external quality assessment rounds demonstrate improved quality of biomarker analysis in lung cancer

Biomarker analysis has become routine practice in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To ensure high quality testing, participation to external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is essential. This article provides a longitudinal overview of the EQA performance for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 analyses in NSCLC between 2012 and 2015.

The four scheme years were organized by the European Society of Pathology according to the ISO 17043 standard. Participants were asked to analyze the provided tissue using their routine procedures.

Analysis scores improved for individual laboratories upon participation to more EQA schemes, except for ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC). For EGFR analysis, scheme error rates were 18.8%, 14.1% and 7.5% in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively. For ALK testing, error rates decreased between 2012 and 2015 by 5.2%, 3.2% and 11.8% for the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), FISH digital, and IHC subschemes, respectively. In contrast, for ROS1 error rates increased between 2014 and 2015 for FISH and IHC by 3.2% and 9.3%. Technical failures decreased over the years for all three markers.

Results show that EQA contributes to an ameliorated performance for most predictive biomarkers in NSCLC. Room for improvement is still present, especially for ROS1 analysis.

RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of "hot-spot" codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Overall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC.

RESULTS

A total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4-50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.

External quality assessment unravels interlaboratory differences in quality of RAS testing for anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Regulations for the selection of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for anti-EGFR treatment changed at the end of 2013. The set of mutations to be tested extended from KRAS codons 12 and 13 to KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4. A European external quality assessment scheme monitored the performance of laboratories and evaluated the implementation of the new regulations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 131 participating laboratories received 10 samples of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material, including RAS (exon 2, 3, 4) and BRAF mutations. Mock clinical data were provided for three cases. Using their routine methods, laboratories determined the genotypes and submitted three written reports. Assessors scored the results according to predefined evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Half of the participants (49.3%) had completely implemented the new test requirements (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146 of KRAS and NRAS), and 96 laboratories (73.3%) made no genotype mistakes. Correct nomenclature, according to the Human Genome Variation Society, was used by 82 laboratories (62.6%).

CONCLUSION

Although regulations were effective for several months, many laboratories were not ready for full RAS testing in the context of anti-EGFR therapy. Nevertheless, in each participating country, there are laboratories that provide complete and correct testing. External quality assessments can be used to monitor implementation of new test regulations and to stimulate the laboratories to improve their testing procedures. Because the results of this program are available on the website of the European Society of Pathology, patients and clinicians can refer test samples to a reliable laboratory.

The relevance of external quality assessment for molecular testing for ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer: results from two pilot rounds show room for optimization

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Molecular profiling should be performed on all advanced non-small cell lung cancer with non-squamous histology to allow treatment selection. Currently, this should include EGFR mutation testing and testing for ALK rearrangements. ROS1 is another emerging target. ALK rearrangement status is a critical biomarker to predict response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as crizotinib. To promote high quality testing in non-small cell lung cancer, the European Society of Pathology has introduced an external quality assessment scheme. This article summarizes the results of the first two pilot rounds organized in 2012-2013.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue microarray slides consisting of cell-lines and resection specimens were distributed with the request for routine ALK testing using IHC or FISH. Participation in ALK FISH testing included the interpretation of four digital FISH images.

RESULTS

Data from 173 different laboratories was obtained. Results demonstrate decreased error rates in the second round for both ALK FISH and ALK IHC, although the error rates were still high and the need for external quality assessment in laboratories performing ALK testing is evident. Error rates obtained by FISH were lower than by IHC. The lowest error rates were observed for the interpretation of digital FISH images.

CONCLUSION

There was a large variety in FISH enumeration practices. Based on the results from this study, recommendations for the methodology, analysis, interpretation and result reporting were issued. External quality assessment is a crucial element to improve the quality of molecular testing.

Higher quality of molecular testing, an unfulfilled priority: Results from external quality assessment for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer

Precision medicine is now a key element in clinical oncology. RAS mutational status is a crucial predictor of responsiveness to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in metastatic colorectal cancer. In an effort to guarantee high-quality testing services in molecular pathology, the European Society of Pathology has been organizing an annual KRAS external quality assessment program since 2009. In 2012, 10 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, of which 8 from invasive metastatic colorectal cancer tissue and 2 artificial samples of cell line material, were sent to more than 100 laboratories from 26 countries with a request for routine KRAS testing. Both genotyping and clinical reports were assessed independently. Twenty-seven percent of the participants genotyped at least 1 of 10 samples incorrectly. In total, less than 5% of the distributed specimens were genotyped incorrectly. Genotyping errors consisted of false negatives, false positives, and incorrectly genotyped mutations. Twenty percent of the laboratories reported a technical error for one or more samples. A review of the written reports showed that several essential elements were missing, most notably a clinical interpretation of the test result, the method sensitivity, and the use of a reference sequence. External quality assessment serves as a valuable educational tool in assessing and improving molecular testing quality and is an important asset for monitoring quality assurance upon incorporation of new biomarkers in diagnostic services.