Search

Results of clinical genomic testing must be reported in a clear, concise format to ensure they are understandable and interpretable. It is important laboratories are aware of the information which is essential to make sure the results are not open to misinterpretation. As genomic testing has continued to evolve over the past decade, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic) published in 2014 have been reviewed and updated to provide the genomic community with guidance on reporting unambiguous results. ispartof: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS vol:30 issue:9 pages:1011-1016 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), targeted therapies are becoming part of the standard treatment. It is of question which information the clinicians provide on test requests and how the laboratories adapt test conclusions to this knowledge and regulations. Methods This study consisted of two components; 1) checking the presence of pre-defined elements (administrative and key for therapy-choice) on completed requests and corresponding reports in Belgian laboratories, both for tissue- and liquid biopsy (LB)-testing and b) opinion analysis from Belgian pathologists/molecular biologists and clinicians during national pathology/oncology meetings. Results Data from 4 out of 6 Belgian laboratories with ISO-accreditation for LB-testing were analyzed, of which 75% were university hospitals. On the scored requests (N = 4), 12 out of 19 ISO-required elements were present for tissue and 11 for LB-testing. Especially relevant patient history, such as line of therapy (for LB), tumor histology and the reason for testing were lacking. Similarly, 11 and 9 out of 18 elements were present in the reports (N = 4) for tissue and LB, respectively. Elements that pathologists/molecular biologists (N = 18) were missing on the request were the initial activating mutation, previous therapies, a clinical question and testing-related information. For reporting, an item considered important by both groups is the clinical interpretation of the test result. In addition, clinicians (N = 28) indicated that they also wish to read the percentage of neoplastic cells. Conclusions Communication flows between the laboratory and the clinician, together with possible pitfalls were identified. Based on the study results, templates for complete requesting and reporting were proposed.

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. ispartof: VIRCHOWS ARCHIV vol:481 issue:3 pages:351-366 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

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.

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. ispartof: Cancers vol:14 issue:15 pages:3686-3686 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: Published online

With the implementation of Regulation (European Union [EU]) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR), from May 26, 2022, onwards, the development and use of diagnostic tests will be governed by a vastly expanded and upgraded EU regulatory framework. We provide here an overview of the amended transition timelines, the role of notified bodies, EU reference laboratories, expert panels, and the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG). We also describe the implications of the IVDR for innovative laboratory medicine by explaining the exemption for in-house devices (IH-IVDs). Two key challenges faced by the academic diagnostic sector are: (1) the stipulation on equivalence of tests (article 5.5d), which poses a new condition for the use of IH-IVDs and (2) the gray area between CE marked in vitro diagnostics (CE-IVDs), modified CE-IVDs, Research Use Only (RUO) tests, and IH-IVDs. Furthermore, the results of a questionnaire on current diagnostic practice conducted by European medical societies collaborating in the BioMed Alliance indicate widespread use of IH-IVDs in diagnostic laboratories across Europe and emphasize the need for support and guidance to comply with the IVDR. Diagnostic equivalents of the European Reference Networks (ERNs) for rare diseases could help ensure affordable and equal access to specialized diagnostics across the EU. Concerted action by clinical and laboratory disciplines, regulators, industry, and patient organizations is needed to support the efficient and effective implementation of the IVDR in a way that preserves innovation and safeguards the quality, safety, and accessibility of innovative diagnostics.

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.

Biomarker testing is crucial for treatment selection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the quantity of available tissue often presents a key constraint for patients with advanced disease, where minimally invasive tissue biopsy typically returns small samples. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to small sample processing for patients with NSCLC. Generally, tissue biopsy techniques that deliver the greatest quantity and quality of tissue with the least risk to the patient should be selected. Rapid on-site evaluation can help to ensure sufficient sample quality and quantity. Sample processing should be managed according to biomarker testing requirements, because tissue fixation methodology influences downstream nucleic acid, protein and morphological analyses. Accordingly, 10% neutral buffered formalin is recommended as an appropriate fixative, and the duration of fixation is recommended not to exceed 24-48 h. Tissue sparing techniques, including the 'one biopsy per block' approach and small sample cutting protocols, can help preserve tissue. Cytological material (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] cytology blocks and non-FFPE samples such as smears and touch preparations) can be an excellent source of nucleic acid, providing either primary or supplementary patient material to complete morphological and molecular diagnoses. Considerations on biomarker testing, reporting and quality assessment are discussed in Part 2. ispartof: VIRCHOWS ARCHIV vol:481 issue:3 pages:335-350 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

Context.— Errors in laboratory medicine could compromise patient safety. Good laboratory practice includes identifying and managing nonconformities in the total test process. Varying error percentages have been described in other fields but are lacking for molecular oncology. Objectives.— To gain insight into incident causes and frequency in the total test process from 8 European institutes routinely performing biomarker tests in non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer. Design.— All incidents documented in 2018 were collected from all hospital services for pre-preanalytical entries before the biomarker test, as well as specific incidents for biomarker tests. Results.— There were 5185 incidents collected, of which 4363 (84.1%) occurred in the pre-preanalytical phase (all hospital services), 2796 of 4363 (64.1%) related to missing or incorrect request form information. From the other 822 specific incidents, 166 (20.2%) were recorded in the preanalytical phase, 275 (33.5%) in the analytical phase, and 194 (23.6%) in the postanalytical phase, mainly due to incorrect report content. Only 47 of 822 (5.7%) incidents were recorded in the post-postanalytical phase, and 123 (15.0%) in the complete total test process. For 17 of 822 (2.1%) incidents the time point was unknown. Pre-preanalytical incidents were resolved sooner than incidents on the complete process (mean 6 versus 60 days). For 1215 of 5168 (23.5%) incidents with known causes a specific action was undertaken besides documenting them, not limited to accredited institutes. Conclusions.— There was a large variety in the number and extent of documented incidents. Correct and complete information on the request forms and final reports are highly error prone and require additional focus.

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

Molecular pathology is continuously evolving and laboratories are challenged to implement tests accurately prior to administration of targeted therapies. External quality assessment (EQA) programs revealed method-specific problems for laboratories who switched methods, and a good adherence to guidelines during method validation/verification in the USA. This study evaluated current guideline adherence in Europe and experienced hurdles during test, marker or sample implementation. EQA participants from the European Society of Pathology were invited to complete an electronic survey if they: (i) recently changed their assay, (ii) implemented PD-L1 analysis, (iii) or introduced analysis of circulating tumor DNA. In total, survey data from 54 laboratories was analyzed. The majority of laboratories implemented a written procedure for validation (68.5%) or verification (59.3%), in 53.7% and 44.4% cases based on standards or available literature. For 20.4% of respondents, a specific guideline was not available yet for their test strategy. Method revalidations and staff training, as well as EQA participation were frequently performed. Most reported hurdles included controlling of pre-analytical variables (87.0%), finding appropriate controls for rare mutations or antigens, and for varying positivity ranges/frequency (56.5%). In the post-analytical phase, interpretation of complex bio-informatics was a main concern (70.0%), while staff limitations, increased costs and workload (53.1%-57.1%) were barriers affecting the entire test process. Documentation of procedures and guideline adherence was higher but not limited to accredited institutes. The data stressed the importance of further quality efforts to aid laboratories with controlling pre-analytical variables, the selection of appropriate controls, and test interpretation of complex data.

Objectives The new European In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR) restricts the use of lab-developed tests (LDT) after 26th May 2022. There are no data on the impact of the IVDR on laboratories in the European Union. Methods Laboratory tests performed in UZ Leuven were divided in four groups: core laboratory, immunology, special chemistry, and molecular microbiology testing. Each test was classified as Conformité Européenne (CE)-IVD, modified/off-label CE-IVD, commercial Research Use Only (RUO) or LDT. Each matrix was considered a separate test. Results We found that 97.6% of the more than 11.5 million results/year were generated with a CE-IVD method. Of the 922 different laboratory tests, however, only 41.8% were CE-IVD, 10.8% modified/off-label CE-IVD, 0.3% RUO, and 47.1% LDT. Off-label CE-IVD was mainly used to test alternative matrices not covered by the claim of the manufacturer (e.g., pleural or peritoneal fluid). LDTs were mainly used for special chemistry, flow cytometry, and molecular testing. Excluding flow cytometry, the main reasons for the use of 377 LDTs were lack of a CE-IVD method (71.9%), analytical requirements (14.3%), and the fact the LDT was in use before CE-IVD available (11.9%). Conclusions While the large majority of results (97.6%) were generated with a CE-IVD method, only 41.8% of laboratory tests were CE-IVD. There is currently no alternative on the market for 71.5% of the 537 LDTs performed in our laboratory which do not fall within the scope of the current IVD directive (IVDD). Compliance with the IVDR will require a major investment of time and effort.

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.

A standardized nomenclature for reporting oncology biomarker variants is key to avoid misinterpretation of results and unambiguous registration in clinical databases. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes have revealed a need for more consistent nomenclature use in clinical genetics. We evaluated the propensity of EQA for improvement of compliance with Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations for reporting of predictive somatic variants in lung and colorectal cancer. Variant entries between 2012 and 2018 were collected from written reports and electronic results sheets. In total, 4,053 variants were assessed, of which 12.1% complied with HGVS recommendations. Compliance improved over time from 2.1% (2012) to 22.3% (2018), especially when laboratories participated in multiple EQA schemes. Compliance was better for next‐generation sequencing (20.9%) compared with targeted techniques (9.8%). In the 1792 reports, HGVS recommendations for reference sequences were met for 31.9% of reports, for 36.0% of noncommercial, and 26.5% of commercial test methods. Compliance improved from 16.7% (2012) to 33.1% (2018), and after repeated EQA participation. EQA participation improves compliance with HGVS recommendations. The residual percentage of errors in the most recent schemes suggests that laboratories, companies, and EQA providers need to collaborate for additional improvement of harmonization in clinical test reporting., Participation to external quality assessment (EQA) improved compliance with Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations. Compliance of variant descriptions was better for next‐generation sequencing (20.9%) compared with targeted techniques (9.8%). A correct reference sequence was included for 36.0% of noncommercial versus 26.5% of commercial test methods. The residual percentage of noncompliance with HGVS suggests that laboratories, companies, and EQA providers need to collaborate for additional harmonization in clinical test reporting.

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

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.

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.

Contains fulltext : 118506.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Participation in external quality assessment (EQA) is a key element of quality assurance in medical laboratories. In genetics EQA, both genotyping and interpretation are assessed. We aimed to analyse changes in the completeness of interpretation in clinical laboratory reports of the European cystic fibrosis EQA scheme and to investigate the effect of the number of previous participations, laboratory accreditation/certification status, setting and test volume. We distributed similar versions of mock clinical cases to eliminate the influence of the difficulty of the clinical question on interpretation performance: a cystic fibrosis patient (case 1) and a cystic fibrosis carrier (case 2). We then performed a retrospective longitudinal study of reports over a 6-year period from 298 participants for case 1 (2004, 2008, 2009) and from 263 participants for case 2 (2006, 2008, 2009). The number of previous participations had a positive effect on the interpretation score (P

Currently, two nomenclature systems are in use to describe sequence variants for cystic fibrosis: the established traditional nomenclature system and the more recent Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature system. We have evaluated the use of both systems in the laboratory reports of 217 participants in the cystic fibrosis external quality assessment scheme of 2009. The mutation c.1521_1523delCTT (p.Phe508del, F508del) was described by traditional and HGVS nomenclature by 32 of 216 (15%) laboratories that correctly identified the mutation, whereas 171 (79%) laboratories used traditional nomenclature only and 13 (6%) laboratories used HGVS nomenclature only. Overall, 29 of 631 (5%) reports used nomenclature that was evaluated as being seriously incorrect and/or misleading and 136 (22%) reports contained attempts at HGVS coding, of which 104 (76%) contained no coding errors; just 33 (24%) mentioned the correct cDNA name and cited the nucleotide reference sequence. We recognized an urgent need for more consistent and correct usage of nomenclature. We recommended that cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator testing reports should include a description of the identified sequence variants in both HGVS and traditional nomenclature and provided basic recommendations and other guidance.

Contains fulltext : 96128.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) In Europe, the use of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies is restricted to Kirsten RAS (KRAS) wild-type colorectal tumors. Information on the KRAS status of the patients tumor is thus key for clinical practice; however, there is little guidance or definition on which KRAS mutations to assess and how to assess them. To ensure the consistency and the quality of KRAS test results in Europe, an interlaboratory control network needs to be set up. This pilot study aimed to identify the variables that need to be assessed in a quality control scheme and to provide a first assessment in a selected set of laboratories. Fourteen different tumor cases were circulated between 13 laboratories by a central laboratory acting as the referent for the mutation status determination. This study illustrated that of 13 experienced laboratories that perform KRAS testing only ten correctly identified the KRAS in all 14 cases that were circulated. There was no harmonization in DNA isolation and KRAS mutation detection method between the laboratories. These results indicate that future standardization is needed in KRAS mutation detection methodology. An expansion of the European Society of Pathology KRAS program could identify areas of difficulty in KRAS testing and provide the basis for harmonization.

Medical laboratories, and specifically genetic testing laboratories, provide vital medical services to different clients: clinicians requesting a test, patients from whom the sample was collected, public health and medical-legal instances, referral laboratories and authoritative bodies. All expect results that are accurate and obtained in an efficient and effective manner, within a suitable time frame and at acceptable cost. There are different ways of achieving the end results, but compliance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189, the international standard for the accreditation of medical laboratories, is becoming progressively accepted as the optimal approach to assuring quality in medical testing. We present recommendations and strategies designed to aid genetic testing laboratories with the implementation of a quality management system, including key aspects such as document control, external quality assessment, internal quality control, internal audit, management review, validation, as well as managing the human side of change. The focus is on pragmatic approaches to attain the levels of quality management and quality assurance required for accreditation according to ISO 15189, within the context of genetic testing. Attention is also given to implementing efficient and effective quality improvement.

Assuring high quality within the field of genetic testing is fundamental, as the results can have considerable impact on the patient and his or her family. The use of appropriate quality control (QC) samples is therefore essential. Diagnostic laboratories mainly use patient samples as QC material, which of course include a maximum of two mutations per sample. Bearing in mind that some assays (such as for cystic fibrosis [CF] testing) can test for more than 100 mutations, multiplex QC materials including more than two mutations could save valuable time and reagents. Based on this need, synthetic multiplex controls have been developed by Maine Molecular Quality Controls, Inc. (MMQCI) for CF. A synthetic control, containing six homozygous mutations and one polymorphism for CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), was evaluated by distributing it through the CF external quality assessment (EQA) scheme, along with the EQA samples in 2005. A total of 197 participants returned results of the yearly EQA scheme and 133 laboratories participated in the evaluation of the synthetic sample. Respectively, 76% and 73% of the participants were assigned as successful. This evaluation study revealed that the multiplex QC material performed well in the majority of assays and could be useful in method validation, as a tool to challenge interpretation skills, and as potential proficiency testing (PT) material. Hum Mutat 29(8), 1063–1070, 2008. r r 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

Purpose: To provide a summary of the outcomes of two working conferences organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop recommendations for practical, sustainable mechanisms to make quality control (QC) materials available to the genetic testing community. Methods: Participants were selected to include experts in genetic testing and molecular diagnostics from professional organizations, government agencies, industry, laboratories, academic institutions, cell repositories, and proficiency testing (PT)/external Quality Assessment (EQA) programs. Current efforts to develop QC materials for genetic tests were reviewed; key issues and areas of need were identified; and workgroups were formed to address each area of need and to formulate recommendations and next steps. Results: Recommendations were developed toward establishing a sustainable process to improve the availability of appropriate QC materials for genetic testing, with an emphasis on molecular genetic testing as an initial step. Conclusions: Improving the availability of appropriate QC materials is of critical importance for assuring the quality of genetic testing, enhancing performance evaluation and PT/EQA programs, and facilitating new test development. To meet the needs of the rapidly expanding capacity of genetic testing in clinical and public health settings, a comprehensive, coordinated program should be developed. A Genetic Testing Quality Control Materials Program has therefore been established by CDC in March 2005 to serve these needs.

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.

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. ispartof: PLoS One vol:9 issue:11 ispartof: location:United States status: published

DNA-based testing for genetic diseases has developed from nothing into a principal part of laboratory medicine over the past 15 years. In the rush to bring these powerful new technologies into medical use, issues of quality have not always been given sufficient attention. Efforts are now being made to assess the quality of the output of genetic testing laboratories, and the results show that there is room for improvement.