Search

Introduction: Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) has emerged as an efficient tool in clinical cancer diagnostics to broaden the scope from panel-based diagnostics to screening of all genes and enabling robust determination of complex biomarkers in a single analysis., Methods: To assess concordance, six formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens and four commercial reference standards were analyzed by WES as matched tumor-normal DNA at 21 NGS centers in Germany, each employing local wet-lab and bioinformatics. Somatic and germline variants, copy-number alterations (CNAs), and complex biomarkers were investigated. Somatic variant calling was performed in 494 diagnostically relevant cancer genes. The raw data were collected and re-analyzed with a central bioinformatic pipeline to separate wet- and dry-lab variability., Results: The mean positive percentage agreement (PPA) of somatic variant calling was 76 % while the positive predictive value (PPV) was 89 % in relation to a consensus list of variants found by at least five centers. Variant filtering was identified as the main cause for divergent variant calls. Adjusting filter criteria and re-analysis increased the PPA to 88 % for all and 97 % for the clinically relevant variants. CNA calls were concordant for 82 % of genomic regions. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status were concordant for 94 %, 93 %, and 93 % of calls, respectively. Variability of CNAs and complex biomarkers did not decrease considerably after harmonization of the bioinformatic processing and was hence attributed mainly to wet-lab differences., Conclusion: Continuous optimization of bioinformatic workflows and participating in round robin tests are recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MMT reports speaker and travel Expenses from Twist. JS reports speaker honoraria from DLS, Molecular Health, AstraZeneca and Biocartis, outside the submitted work. UL reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Menarini, advisory board from AstraZeneca and Novartis. DH reports speaker honorary AstraZeneca, adboard BMS, WD speaker honoraries BMS & Novartis. SMB reports speaker honoraria, advisory board fees and research grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Menarini, Novartis, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Molecular Health, Targos, DLS, Janssen, GSK, QuIP, outside the submitted work. SL reports research grant from BMS, advisory board/speaker invitation from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche and Takeda outside of this work. NTG reports research support from Janssen-Cilag and Advisory Boards from Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo and BMS outside the submitted work. WW reports research grants from Roche, MSD, BMS and AstraZeneca. Advisory board, lectures and speaker bureau fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, Amgen, Astellas, Illumina, Eisai, Siemens, Agilent, ADC, GSK und Molecular Health. SO received reimbursement for travel expenses and payment for conference presentations from Illumina Inc. and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. CS reports research funding from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie and institutional grants from Illumina outside the submitted work. CPS reports an investigator-initiated grant from Illumnia outside of the submitted work. PS reports grants from Inctye, BMS, Gilead, Falk, speakers bureau/advisory board from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Astellas, Janssen, Eisai, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim. DK reports personal fees for speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, personal fees for Advisory Board from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. NP reports speaker fees from Novartis, Bayer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, advisory board from Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Janssen, travel expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, Research grants from Illumina. JB reports grants from German Cancer Aid and consulting from MSD, outside the submitted work. AS reports participation in Advisory Board/Speaker’s Bureau for Astra Zeneca, AGCT, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Thermo Fisher, grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Major differences with respect to the diagnostic performance of a "ruling in" approach in the presurgical diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) have been reported. Therefore, the aim of this prospective multicenter study was to investigate the specific diagnostic impact of mutation testing using a seven-gene panel in a routine primary referral setting analyzing FNAs from endocrinology and nuclear medicine practices in Germany., Methods: RNA and DNA was extracted from 564 routine air-dried FNA smears obtained from 64 physicians and cytologically graded by one experienced cytopathologist. PAX8/PPARG and RET/PTC rearrangements were detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction, while BRAF and RAS mutations were detected by pyrosequencing. Molecular data were compared to histology and follow-up >1 year, which were available for 322/348 patients undergoing surgery and 33/74 patients having follow-up. Histology results were obtained from the local routine pathologists who were blinded to the molecular test results., Results: BRAF and RET/PTC mutations were associated with carcinoma in 98% and 100% of samples, respectively. RAS and PAX8/PPARG mutations were associated with carcinoma in 31% and 0% of samples, respectively. Thirty-six percent of the carcinomas were identified by molecular testing in the atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance and follicular neoplasm/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm categories, with malignancy rates of 15% and 17%, respectively. Due to a low percentage of RAS mutation-positive carcinomas in combination with a rather high percentage of RAS mutation-positive benign nodules, the positive predictive values of 41% and 36% in the atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance and follicular neoplasm/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm categories offer only limited diagnostic potential., Conclusion: In conclusion, the data suggest that the application of the current seven-gene panel in a routine primary referral setting does not improve the presurgical diagnosis of thyroid FNAs. While the diagnostic relevance of RAS mutations in thyroid tumors needs further investigation, more comprehensive mutation panels with more cancer-specific mutations may improve the presurgical diagnosis of thyroid FNAs.