Search

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00428-020-02928-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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. ispartof: JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS vol:22 issue:12 pages:1438-1452 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-020-02966-7.

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.

Clonality analysis of immunoglobulin (IG) or T-cell receptor (TR) gene rearrangements is routine practice to assist diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. Participation in external quality assessment (EQA) aids laboratories in identifying systematic shortcomings. The aim of this study was to evaluate laboratories’ improvement in IG/TR analysis and interpretation during five EQA rounds between 2014 and 2018. Each year, participants received a total of five cases for IG and five cases for TR testing. Paper-based cases were included for analysis of the final molecular conclusion that should be interpreted based on the integration of the individual PCR results. Wet cases were distributed for analysis of their routine protocol as well as evaluation of the final molecular conclusion. In total, 94.9% (506/533) of wet tests and 97.9% (829/847) of paper tests were correctly analyzed for IG, and 96.8% (507/524) wet tests and 93.2% (765/821) paper tests were correctly analyzed for TR. Analysis scores significantly improved when laboratories participated to more EQA rounds (p=0.001). Overall performance was significantly lower (p=0.008) for non-EuroClonality laboratories (95% for IG and 93% for TR) compared to EuroClonality laboratories (99% for IG and 97% for TR). The difference was not related to the EQA scheme year, anatomic origin of the sample, or final clinical diagnosis. This evaluation showed that repeated EQA participation helps to reduce performance differences between laboratories (EuroClonality versus non-EuroClonality) and between sample types (paper versus wet). The difficulties in interpreting oligoclonal cases highlighted the need for continued education by meetings and EQA schemes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-021-03046-0.

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. ispartof: DIAGNOSTICS vol:10 issue:10 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

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.

AIMS: Results from external quality assessment revealed considerable variation in neoplastic cell percentages (NCP) estimation in samples for biomarker testing. As molecular biology tests require a minimal NCP, overestimations may lead to false negative test results. We aimed to develop recommendations to improve the NCP determination in a prototypical entity - colorectal carcinoma - that can be adapted for other cancer types. METHODS AND RESULTS: A modified Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus by 10 pathologists from 10 countries with experience in determining the NCP for colorectal adenocarcinoma. This study included two online surveys and a decision-making meeting. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of > 80%. All pathologists completed both surveys. Consensus was reached for 8 out of 19 and 2 out of 13 questions in the first and second surveys, respectively. Remaining issues were resolved during the meeting. Twenty-four recommendations were formulated. Major recommendations resulted as follows: only pathologists should conduct the morphological evaluation; nevertheless molecular biologists/technicians may estimate the NCP, if specific training has been performed and a pathologist is available for feedback. The estimation should be determined in the area with the highest density of viable neoplastic cells and lowest density of inflammatory cells. Other recommendations concerned: the determination protocol itself, needs for micro- and macro-dissection, reporting and interpreting, referral practices and applicability to other cancer types. CONCLUSION: We believe these recommendations may lead to more accurate NCP estimates, ensuring the correct interpretation of test results, and might help in validating digital algorithms in the future. ispartof: HISTOPATHOLOGY vol:75 issue:3 pages:312-319 ispartof: location:England status: published

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.

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. ispartof: JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS vol:19 issue:6 pages:969-974 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Because interpretation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data remains challenging, optimization of the NGS process is needed to obtain correct sequencing results. Therefore, extensive validation and continuous monitoring of the quality is essential. NGS performance was compared with traditional detection methods and technical quality of nine NGS technologies was assessed. First, nine formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded patient samples were analyzed by 114 laboratories by using different detection methods. No significant differences in performance were observed between analyses with NGS and traditional techniques. Second, two DNA control samples were analyzed for a selected number of variants by 26 participants with the use of nine different NGS technologies. Quality control metrics were analyzed from raw data files and a survey about routine procedures. Results showed large differences in coverages, but observed variant allele frequencies in raw data files were in line with predefined variant allele frequencies. Many false negative results were found because of low-quality regions, which were not reported as such. It is recommended to disclose the reportable range, the fraction of targeted genomic regions for which calls of acceptable quality can be generated, to avoid any errors in therapy decisions. NGS can be a reliable technique, only if essential quality control during analysis is applied and reported.

International audience; 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.

Neoplastic cell content determination is crucial for biomarker testing. It is known that interobserver variation exists, but largescale data are missing about variation in tumor delineation and cell content determination. Results were obtained from the external quality assessment program for metastatic colorectal cancer from the European Society of Pathology (N = 5776 observations). The study included three parts: current practices were surveyed, neoplastic cell content estimations and delineations were retrieved from stained slides, and clinical reports were analyzed. Seventeen of 43 pathologists determined the neoplastic cell content in a tumor-rich area for DNA extraction and took immune cells (n = 37), tumor cell distribution (n = 33), desmoplastic stroma (n = 30), necrosis (n = 29), and mucus (n = 23) into account. The selected area was highly variable, and the average difference between the highest and lowest estimation ranged between 51% and 78% (2011 to 2017). The number of overestimations was alarmingly high in samples containing30% tumor cells. Of concern is that 33 of 105 laboratories reported a wild-type result in a sample without tumor in 2017. Standardization of neoplastic cell content determination is needed for test outcome interpretation. The authors' data show variation in estimation practices, tumor delineations and estimations, and interpretation problems (n = 226 reports). Further training for selecting the most suitable block and creating clear reports is urgently needed.

Molecular biomarker analysis for the personalised treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is becoming more common, due to the number and availability of molecular targets for predictive biomarker testing increasing [1]. Clinical laboratories must implement accurate test procedures and provide timely and reliable test results, to ensure that appropriate therapies are administered to patients [2]. The challenge for laboratories is to keep pace with molecular biomarker developments while maintaining excellence in service standards. Plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) may be found in the blood of cancer patients, alongside a larger fraction of circulating free DNA (cfDNA). Plasma ctDNA testing is becoming more common in the management of cancer patients [3]. It has several advantages: in the absence of suitable or sufficient tissue biopsy, it yields material for molecular analysis, can demonstrate molecular resistance to targeted treatment and is an alternative to invasive tissue sampling [4]. Plasma ctDNA analysis may also prove useful in cases of intra- and inter-tumour heterogeneity [5]. With formal approval from the European Medicine Agency (EMA), several clinical applications for plasma ctDNA testing are now being considered, including the detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations in the plasma of patients with advanced NSCLC [6]. The implementation of new methods such as plasma ctDNA testing can be challenging for diagnostic laboratories. Indeed, it has been shown that inexperience in specialised and complex techniques can compromise the result quality [2, 7]. To address these issues, four EQA providers came together under the umbrella organisation the International Quality Network for Pathology IQN Path (IQN Path): Association Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM), European Molecular Genetics Quality Network (EMQN), European Society of Pathology (ESP) EQA and the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS) for Molecular Genetics. Their aim was to survey testing methods currently in use and to pilot an EQA which assessed the standards of plasma ctDNA testing. This article summarises the results of the survey, which evaluated current laboratory practices in this field and which will subsequently inform the design of a pilot EQA scheme for plasma ctDNA testing.

Liquid biopsy testing is a new laboratory-based method that detects tumour mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) derived from minimally invasive blood sampling techniques. Recognising the significance for clinical testing, in 2017, IQN Path provided external quality assessment for liquid biopsy testing. Representatives of those participating laboratories were invited to attend a workshop to discuss the findings and how to achieve quality implementation of cfDNA testing in the clinical setting, the discussion and outcomes of this consensus meeting are described below. Predictive molecular profiling using tumour tissue in order to select cancer patients eligible for targeted therapy is now routine in diagnostic pathology. If insufficient tumour tissue material is available, in some circumstances, recent European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance recommends mutation testing with plasma cfDNA. Clinical applications of cfDNA include treatment selection based on clinically relevant mutations derived from pre-treatment samples and the detection of resistant mutations upon progression of the disease. In order to identify tumour-related mutations in amongst other nucleic acid material found in plasma samples, highly sensitive laboratory methods are needed. In the workshop, we discussed the variable approaches taken with regard to cfDNA extraction methods, the tests, and considered the impact of false-negative test results. We explored the lack of standardisation of complex testing procedures ranging from plasma collection, transport, processing and storage, cfDNA extraction, and mutation analysis, to interpretation and reporting of results. We will also address the current status of clinical validation and clinical utility, and its use in current diagnosis. This workshop revealed a need for guidelines on with standardised procedures for clinical cfDNA testing and reporting, and a requirement for cfDNA-based external quality assessment programs. ispartof: VIRCHOWS ARCHIV vol:474 issue:6 pages:681-689 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

Background The amount of stroma in the primary tumor is an important prognostic parameter. The tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) was previously validated by international research groups as a robust parameter with good interobserver agreement. Objective The Uniform Noting for International Application of the Tumor-Stroma Ratio as an Easy Diagnostic Tool (UNITED) study was developed to bring the TSR to clinical implementation. As part of the study, an e-Learning module was constructed to confirm the reproducibility of scoring the TSR after proper instruction. Methods The e-Learning module consists of an autoinstruction for TSR determination (instruction video or written protocol) and three sets of 40 cases (training, test, and repetition sets). Scoring the TSR is performed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections and takes only 1-2 minutes. Cases are considered stroma-low if the amount of stroma is ≤50%, whereas a stroma-high case is defined as >50% stroma. Inter- and intraobserver agreements were determined based on the Cohen κ score after each set to evaluate the reproducibility. Results Pathologists and pathology residents (N=63) with special interest in colorectal cancer participated in the e-Learning. Forty-nine participants started the e-Learning and 31 (63%) finished the whole cycle (3 sets). A significant improvement was observed from the training set to the test set; the median κ score improved from 0.72 to 0.77 (P=.002). Conclusions e-Learning is an effective method to instruct pathologists and pathology residents for scoring the TSR. The reliability of scoring improved from the training to the test set and did not fall back with the repetition set, confirming the reproducibility of the TSR scoring method. Trial Registration The Netherlands Trial Registry NTR7270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7072 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/13464

The Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations provide standardized nomenclature for reporting variants. This should be encouraged in molecular pathology-both for issuing diagnostic reports and for correct data recording in electronic databases. Many providers of external quality assessment (EQA) promote the correct use of HGVS nomenclature by scoring variant descriptions used in EQA reports. This study focuses on the type and impact of variant nomenclature errors. An assessment was made of EGFR gene variant nomenclature by four EQA providers (European Society of Pathology [ESP], European Molecular Genetics Quality Network [EMQN], United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service for Molecular Genetics, and the French national Gen&Tiss EQA scheme) for two EQA distributions. Laboratories testing for oncology biomarkers make different errors when describing EGFR gene variants. Significant differences were observed regarding inclusion of the correct reference sequence: EMQN participants made fewer errors compared to ESP EQA participants (P-value = 0.015). The analysis of ESP EQA participants showed significant improvement over 2 years (P-value = 0.016). Results demonstrate the need for improvement of variant reporting according to HGVS guidelines. Consequences of using incorrect mutation nomenclature are currently perceived as low by many laboratories, but the impact will rise with an increased reliance on databases to assist in result analysis.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00428-019-02525-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Molecular testing of EGFR is required to predict the response likelihood to targeted therapy in non–small cell lung cancer. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA in plasma may complement limitations of tumor tissue. This study evaluated the interlaboratory performance and reproducibility of a real-time PCR EGFR mutation test (cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2) to detect EGFR variants in plasma. Fourteen laboratories received two identical panels of 27 single-blinded plasma samples. Samples were wild type or spiked with plasmid DNA to contain seven common EGFR variants at six predefined concentrations from 50 to 5000 copies per milliliter. The circulating tumor DNA was extracted by a cell-free circulating DNA sample preparation kit (cobas cfDNA Sample Preparation Kit), followed by duplicate analysis with the real-time PCR EGFR mutation test (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA). Lowest sensitivities were obtained for the c.2156G>C p.(Gly719Ala) and c.2573T>G p.(Leu858Arg) variants for the lowest target copies. For all other variants, sensitivities varied between 96.3% and 100.0%. All specificities were 98.8% to 100.0%. Coefficients of variation indicated good intralaboratory and interlaboratory repeatability and reproducibility but increased for decreasing concentrations. Prediction models revealed a significant correlation for all variants between the predefined copy number and the observed semiquantitative index values, which reflect the samples' plasma mutation load. This study demonstrates an overall robust performance of the real-time PCR EGFR mutation test kit in plasma. Prediction models may be applied to estimate the plasma mutation load for diagnostic or research purposes.

BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers allow clinicians to optimise cancer treatment decisions. Therefore, molecular biomarker test results need to be accurate and swiftly available. To ensure quality of oncology biomarker testing, external quality assessments (EQA) for somatic variant analyses were organised. This study hypothesised whether laboratory characteristics influence the performance of laboratories and whether these can be imposed before authorisation of biomarker testing. METHODS: Longitudinal EQA data from the European Society of Pathology were available over six (metastatic colorectal cancer) and four years (non-small cell lung cancer), including the percentage of analysis errors and technical failures, and information on laboratory characteristics (accreditation status, laboratory setting, number of samples analysed and detection method). Statistical models for repeated measurements were used to analyse the association between the EQA results and the laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Laboratory accreditation was associated with fewer analysis errors in early stages of biomarker introduction into the laboratory. Analysing more samples, or university and research laboratories showed better performance. Changing the detection method did not have an effect. CONCLUSION: The indicators support the clinicians in choosing molecular pathology laboratories by improving quality assurance and guaranteeing patient safety. Accreditation of laboratories, centralisation of biomarker testing or a university and research setting should be stimulated. ispartof: BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:119 issue:5 pages:605-614 ispartof: location:England status: Published online

The raid evolution in molecular pathology resulting in an increasing complexity requires careful reporting. The need for standardisation is clearer than ever. While synoptic reporting was first used for reporting hereditary genetic diseases, it is becoming more frequent in pathology, especially molecular pathology reports too. The narrative approach is no longer feasible with the growing amount of essential data present on the report, although narrative components are still necessary for interpretation in molecular pathology. On the way towards standardisation of reports, guidelines can be a helpful tool. There are several guidelines that focus on reporting in the field of hereditary diseases, but it is not always feasible to extrapolate these to the reporting of somatic variants in molecular pathology. The rise of multi-gene testing causes challenges for the laboratories. In order to provide a continuous optimisation of the laboratory testing process, including reporting, external quality assessment is essential and has already proven to improve the quality of reports. In general, a clear and concise report for molecular pathology can be created by including elements deemed important by different guidelines, adapting the report to the process flows of the laboratory and integrating the report with the laboratory information management system and the patient record.

Contains fulltext : 171799.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Personalized medicine has gained increasing importance in clinical oncology, and several clinically important biomarkers are implemented in routine practice. In an effort to guarantee high quality of molecular testing in France, three subsequent external quality assessment rounds were organized at the initiative of the National Cancer Institute between 2012 and 2014. The schemes included clinically relevant biomarkers for metastatic colorectal (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, microsatellite instability) and non-small cell lung cancer (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, ERBB2), and they represent the first multigene/multicancer studies throughout Europe. In total, 56 laboratories coordinated by 28 regional molecular centers participated in the schemes. Laboratories received formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples and were asked to use routine methods for molecular testing to predict patient response to targeted therapies. They were encouraged to return results within 14 calendar days after sample receipt. Both genotyping and reporting were evaluated separately. During the three external quality assessment rounds, mean genotype scores were all above the preset standard of 90% for all biomarkers. Participants were mainly challenged in case of rare insertions or deletions. Assessment of the written reports showed substantial progress between the external quality assessment schemes on multiple criteria. Several essential elements such as the clinical interpretation of test results and the reason for testing still require improvement by continued external quality assessment education.

Quality assurance is an indispensable element in a molecular diagnostic laboratory. The ultimate goal is to warrant patient safety. Several risks that can compromise high quality procedures are at stake, from sample collection to the test performed by the laboratory, the reporting of test results to clinicians, and the organization of effective external quality assessment schemes. Quality assurance should therefore be safeguarded at each level and should imply a holistic multidisciplinary approach. This review aims to provide an overview of good quality assurance practices and discusses certain risks and recommendations to promote and improve quality assurance for both diagnostic laboratories and for external quality assessment providers. The number of molecular targets is continuously rising, and new technologies are evolving. As this poses challenges for clinical implementation and increases the demand for external quality assessment, the formation of an international association for improving quality assurance in molecular pathology is called for. ispartof: Virchows Archiv vol:468 issue:1 pages:31-41 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

This paper presents an overview of the conclusions from an international conference convened to address current issues related to the provision of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening within Europe. Consensus was not aimed at stating whether such a programme should be implemented. Instead the focus was to provide a framework for countries and agencies who are considering or planning its establishment. The general principles and target population of Cystic Fibrosis carrier screening, advantages and disadvantages, health economics, monitoring and future evaluative and research directions were covered. A range of screening strategies have been assessed and compared: pre-conceptional and prenatal screening; individual and couple screening; sequential and simultaneous sampling or testing. Furthermore, technical issues were examined with respect to the choice of the panel of mutations, its detection rate, sensitivity, management of intermediate 'at-risk' couples, screening approach to different populations and ethnic minorities, and assurance of laboratory quality control. The consensus statement also aims to establish the benchmarks for communicating with health care providers, the general public and potential and actual participants before and after the genetic test.

Accreditation of healthcare services is recommended to ensure operation according to the highest quality standards. Various initiatives, such as legislation or accreditation by ISO or JCI, may be active to support and improve quality. The growing trend toward JCI hospital accreditation raised the concern of redundancy between JCI requirements for the use of referral laboratories and the ISO 15189 accreditation for medical laboratories. This would result in needless administrative efforts for hospital laboratories to collect and maintain required documentation, as the JCI quality requirements would be guaranteed given that the referral laboratory is ISO 15189 accredited for those examinations. A consensus meeting was organized by the Working Group for Hospital Accreditation of the Belgian Zorgnet-Icuro network, the University Hospitals of Leuven and the Red Cross to discuss the avoidance of any redundancy between both standards and to issue best practice guidelines for referral laboratories. It was concluded that JCI measurable elements for referral laboratories are covered by the ISO 15189 accreditation scope. The article substantiates the consensus that JCI and ISO quality requirements are harmonized and that accurate knowledge and interpretation of prevailing quality standards are essential to avoid redundancy in quality measures.