Search

AIMS: Gene fusions assays are key for personalised treatments of advanced human cancers. Their implementation on cytological material requires a preliminary validation that may make use of cell line slides mimicking cytological samples. In this international multi-institutional study, gene fusion reference standards were developed and validated. METHODS: Cell lines harbouring EML4(13)-ALK(20) and SLC34A2(4)-ROS1(32) gene fusions were adopted to prepare reference standards. Eight laboratories (five adopting amplicon-based and three hybridisation-based platforms) received, at different dilution points two sets of slides (slide A 50.0%, slide B 25.0%, slide C 12.5% and slide D wild type) stained by Papanicolaou (Pap) and May Grunwald Giemsa (MGG). Analysis was carried out on a total of 64 slides. RESULTS: Four (50.0%) out of eight laboratories reported results on all slides and dilution points. While 12 (37.5%) out of 32 MGG slides were inadequate, 27 (84.4%) out of 32 Pap slides produced libraries adequate for variant calling. The laboratories using hybridisation-based platforms showed the highest rate of inadequate results (13/24 slides, 54.2%). Conversely, only 10.0% (4/40 slides) of inadequate results were reported by laboratories adopting amplicon-based platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Reference standards in cytological format yield better results when Pap staining and processed by amplicon-based assays. Further investigation is required to optimise these standards for MGG stained cells and for hybridisation-based approaches.

INTRODUCTION: The neurotrophic tropomyosin-related kinase (NTRK) genes encode the tropomyosin receptor kinases (TRKs). Patients with solid tumors harboring an oncogenic NTRK fusion are eligible for treatment with TRK inhibitors. NTRK fusion is often associated with TRK overexpression. Pan-TRK immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used to screen for NTRK fusions, but immunoreactivity patterns are poorly defined. METHODS: Data on pan-TRK immunoreactivity patterns in 2,669 solid tumors (comprising carcinomas, sarcomas, and melanocytic lesions) were retrospectively collected by nine laboratories and comprised tumor type, percentage of pan-TRK-positive tumor cells, staining intensity, cytoplasmic, membrane and/or nuclear staining pattern, and the presence or absence of NTRK fusion. RESULTS: Overall, 2,457 tumors (92%) were pan-TRK negative and 212 neoplasms (8%) were pan-TRK positive. Twenty-two pan-TRK-positive tumors (0.8%) harbored an NTRK fusion, representing 10% of all pan-TRK-positive tumors. Cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was most often observed, followed by membrane immunoreactivity. Nuclear pan-TRK positivity was least frequent, but was most often (33%) associated with NTRK fusion. CONCLUSION: Pan-TRK IHC can be used to screen for NTRK fusions, especially in commonly diagnosed solid tumors with low NTRK fusion prevalence. In case of pan-TRK immunoreactivity, regardless of its intensity and tumor cell percentage, subsequent molecular tests should be performed to formally confirm the presence or absence of NTRK fusions.

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.

Introduction: The neurotrophic tropomyosin-related kinase (NTRK) genes encode the tropomyosin receptor kinases (TRKs). Patients with solid tumors harboring an oncogenic NTRK fusion are eligible for treatment with TRK inhibitors. NTRK fusion is often associated with TRK overexpression. Pan-TRK immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used to screen for NTRK fusions, but immunoreactivity patterns are poorly defined. Methods: Data on pan-TRK immunoreactivity patterns in 2,669 solid tumors (comprising carcinomas, sarcomas, and melanocytic lesions) were retrospectively collected by nine laboratories and comprised tumor type, percentage of pan-TRK-positive tumor cells, staining intensity, cytoplasmic, membrane and/or nuclear staining pattern, and the presence or absence of NTRK fusion. Results: Overall, 2,457 tumors (92%) were pan-TRK negative and 212 neoplasms (8%) were pan-TRK positive. Twenty-two pan-TRK-positive tumors (0.8%) harbored an NTRK fusion, representing 10% of all pan-TRK-positive tumors. Cytoplasmic immunoreactivity was most often observed, followed by membrane immunoreactivity. Nuclear pan-TRK positivity was least frequent, but was most often (33%) associated with NTRK fusion. Conclusion: Pan-TRK IHC can be used to screen for NTRK fusions, especially in commonly diagnosed solid tumors with low NTRK fusion prevalence. In case of pan-TRK immunoreactivity, regardless of its intensity and tumor cell percentage, subsequent molecular tests should be performed to formally confirm the presence or absence of NTRK fusions., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Aims Lung cancer predictive biomarker testing is essential to select advanced-stage patients for targeted treatments and should be carried out without delays even during health emergencies, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Methods Fifteen molecular laboratories from seven different European countries compared 4 weeks of national lockdown to a corresponding period in 2019, in terms of tissue and/or plasma-based molecular test workload, analytical platforms adopted, number of cases undergoing programmed death-ligand1 (PD-L1) expression assessment and DNA-based molecular tests turnaround time. Results In most laboratories (80.0%), tissue-based molecular test workload was reduced. In 40.0% of laboratories (6/15), the decrease was >25%, and in one, reduction was as high as 80.0%. In this instance, a concomitant increase in liquid biopsy was reported (60.0%). Remarkably, in 33.3% of the laboratories, real-time PCR (RT-PCR)-based methodologies increased, whereas highly multiplexing assays approaches decreased. Most laboratories (88.9%) did not report significant variations in PD-L1 volume testing. Conclusions The workload of molecular testing for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer during the lockdown showed little variations. Local strategies to overcome health emergency-related issues included the preference for RT-PCR tissue-based testing methodologies and, occasionally, for liquid biopsy.

Background Artificial genomic reference standards in a cytocentrifuge/cytospin format with well-annotated genomic data are useful for validating next-generation sequencing (NGS) on routine cytopreparations. Here, reference standards were optimized to be stained by different laboratories before DNA extraction and to contain a lower number of cells (2 x 10(5)). This was done to better reflect the clinical challenge of working with insufficient cytological material. Methods A total of 17 worldwide laboratories analyzed customized reference standard slides (slides A-D). Each laboratory applied its standard workflow. The sample slides were engineered to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) c.2235_2249del15 p.E746_A750delELREA, EGFR c.2369C>T p.T790M, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) c.38G>A p.G13D, and B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) c.1798_1799GT>AA p.V600K mutations at various allele frequencies (AFs). Results EGFR and KRAS mutation detection showed excellent interlaboratory reproducibility, especially on slides A and B (10% and 5% AFs). On slide C (1% AF), either the EGFR mutation or the KRAS mutation was undetected by 10 of the 17 laboratories (58.82%). A reassessment of the raw data in a second-look analysis highlighted the mutations (n = 10) that had been missed in the first-look analysis. BRAF c.1798_1799GT>AA p.V600K showed a lower concordance rate for mutation detection and AF quantification. Conclusions The data show that the detection of low-abundance mutations is still clinically challenging and may require a visual inspection of sequencing reads to detect. Genomic reference standards in a cytocentrifuge/cytospin format are a valid tool for regular quality assessment of laboratories performing molecular studies on cytology with low-AF mutations.