Managing Deviating EQA Results:A Survey to Assess the Corrective and Preventive Actions of Medical Laboratories Testing for Oncological Biomarkers

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

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing:the utility of sending post-EQA surveys

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

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Europe

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are now well-established treatments and are provided in many European countries. However, regulations, practices, professional standards and accreditation requirements are often markedly different between Member States (MS). Differences between MS seem to be becoming especially pronounced because of the interface between assisted reproduction and genetics. To assess the extent of these differences and try to obtain an initial picture of the overall situation in Europe, in March 2005 the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) organised a workshop on the abovementioned interface . The two-day event brought together 50 experts from different specialities to review current practices in Europe and discuss potential needs in this area. The first thing that became clear was that no full picture was available of PGD practice and provision in Europe. Secondly, the lack of quality assurance for these services in general was perceived as a potential problem. The participants in the workshop unanimously agreed that European clinics should be certified or accredited and that licensing systems should be developed by professional self-regulation. Minimum quality standards should be set. The lack of common European rules and regulations to guarantee minimum standards was said to be adding to the problem. However, quality assurance and accreditation have taken on new significance in the light of the recent EU Directive 2004/23/EC on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. Thirdly, as a result of the abovementioned differences between MS, patients are travelling abroad to gain access to treatment which is not available in their own country. This, in turn, sometimes requires movements of gametes (oocytes and sperm) and embryos within the EU. Whilst it is known that couples and reproductive tissue are moving around Europe, the extent is not known – especially in the new MS. Lastly, an overview of how the different regulatory frameworks are having an impact on the actual practices of PGD services was deemed necessary in order to gain a better understanding of the trans-border flows. Having pinpointed some of the needs in this area, the IPTS launched this study in an effort to address them and to obtain the missing knowledge on provision of PGD services in Europe. The aims of this study are two-fold: 1)to obtain a clear picture of current PGD practice in Europe, including the quality of the services and cross-border activities (flows of couples or reproductive tissue); 2)to carry out a comparative review of the different regulatory frameworks at MS level and identify potential gaps at European level and the impact these might have.JRC.J.5-Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Econom

Variation in nomenclature of somatic variants for selection of oncological therapies:Can we reach a consensus soon?

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

PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in non-small-cell lung cancer:unraveling differences in staining concordance and interpretation

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

External Quality Assessment Schemes for Biomarker Testing in Oncology:Comparison of Performance between Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded-Tissue and Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Plasma

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 in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing:revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL

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

Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients

Molecular testing is becoming an important part of the diagnosis of any patient with cancer. The challenge to laboratories is to meet this need, using reliable methods and processes to ensure that patients receive a timely and accurate report on which their treatment will be based. The aim of this paper is to provide minimum requirements for the management of molecular pathology laboratories. This general guidance should be augmented by the specific guidance available for different tumour types and tests. Preanalytical considerations are important, and careful consideration of the way in which specimens are obtained and reach the laboratory is necessary. Sample receipt and handling follow standard operating procedures, but some alterations may be necessary if molecular testing is to be performed, for instance to control tissue fixation. DNA and RNA extraction can be standardised and should be checked for quality and quantity of output on a regular basis. The choice of analytical method(s) depends on clinical requirements, desired turnaround time, and expertise available. Internal quality control, regular internal audit of the whole testing process, laboratory accreditation, and continual participation in external quality assessment schemes are prerequisites for delivery of a reliable service. A molecular pathology report should accurately convey the information the clinician needs to treat the patient with sufficient information to allow for correct interpretation of the result. Molecular pathology is developing rapidly, and further detailed evidence-based recommendations are required for many of the topics covered here

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 1: Tissue collection and management

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

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment

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