Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer

External Quality Assessment on Molecular Tumor Profiling with Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Methodologies Routinely Used in Clinical Pathology within the COIN Consortium

BACKGROUND

Identification of tumor-derived variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has potential as a sensitive and reliable surrogate for tumor tissue-based routine diagnostic testing. However, variations in pre(analytical) procedures affect the efficiency of ctDNA recovery. Here, an external quality assessment (EQA) was performed to determine the performance of ctDNA mutation detection work flows that are used in current diagnostic settings across laboratories within the Dutch COIN consortium (ctDNA on the road to implementation in The Netherlands).

METHODS

Aliquots of 3 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) plasma samples and 3 artificial reference plasma samples with predetermined mutations were distributed among 16 Dutch laboratories. Participating laboratories were requested to perform ctDNA analysis for BRAF exon 15, EGFR exon 18-21, and KRAS exon 2-3 using their regular circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) analysis work flow. Laboratories were assessed based on adherence to the study protocol, overall detection rate, and overall genotyping performance.

RESULTS

A broad range of preanalytical conditions (e.g., plasma volume, elution volume, and extraction methods) and analytical methodologies (e.g., droplet digital PCR [ddPCR], small-panel PCR assays, and next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were used. Six laboratories (38%) had a performance score of >0.90; all other laboratories scored between 0.26 and 0.80. Although 13 laboratories (81%) reached a 100% overall detection rate, the therapeutically relevant EGFR p.(S752_I759del) (69%), EGFR p.(N771_H773dup) (50%), and KRAS p.(G12C) (48%) mutations were frequently not genotyped accurately.

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent (pre)analytical protocols could lead to discrepant clinical outcomes when using the same plasma samples. Standardization of (pre)analytical work flows can facilitate the implementation of reproducible liquid biopsy testing in the clinical routine.

Critical Factors in the Analytical Work Flow of Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Molecular Profiling

BACKGROUND

Liquid biopsy testing, especially molecular tumor profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in cell-free plasma, has received increasing interest in recent years as it serves as a reliable alternative for the detection of tumor-specific aberrations to guide treatment decision-making in oncology. Many (commercially available) applications have been developed, however, broad divergences in (pre)analytical work flows and lack of universally applied guidelines impede routine clinical implementation. In this review, critical factors in the blood-based ctDNA liquid biopsy work flow are evaluated.

CONTENT

In the preanalytical phase, several aspects (e.g., blood collection tubes [BCTs], plasma processing, and extraction method) affect the quantity and quality of the circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) applicable for subsequent molecular analyses and should meet certain standards to be applied in diagnostic work flows. Analytical considerations, such as analytical input and choice of assay, might vary based on the clinical application (i.e., screening, primary diagnosis, minimal residual disease [MRD], response monitoring, and resistance identification). In addition to practical procedures, variant interpretation and reporting ctDNA results should be harmonized. Collaborative efforts in (inter)national consortia and societies are essential for the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in attempts to standardize the plasma-based ctDNA analysis work flow.

SUMMARY

Development of universally applicable guidelines regarding the critical factors in liquid biopsy testing are necessary to pave the way to clinical implementation for routine diagnostics.

The use of minimal residual disease in thoracic oncology: Gaps between promises and the on-the-ground reality of daily practice

The assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) from blood samples of patients with resected non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is promising and opens up many opportunities for the optimisation of patient care in daily practice. Notably, this includes the potential for escalation or de-escalation of adjuvant therapies. Thus, the evaluation of MRD status can directly contribute to an increase in the overall survival of early stage NSCLC patients and/or limit therapeutic but also "financial" toxicity. Therefore, several clinical trials recently evaluated MRD in early stage NSCLC by integrating and retrospectively comparing the results of MRD assessments. In this context, there is an urgent need to close the gap between clinical research and the use of the evaluation of MRD in routine daily practice. Further action needs to be taken, particularly in evaluating the pertinence of the detection of MRD in prospective interventional clinical studies. This may be done in part by comparing different parameters, such as the techniques used, the different time points and the cutoffs of MRD assessments. This article investigates the assessment of MRD in non-small cell lung cancers, with a special focus on the issues associated with the various assays and the limitations of using circulating free DNA analyses for MRD assessment in early stage lung cancer. Recommendations and tips for the optimisation of MRD evaluation in non-small cell lung cancers are provided.

A scenario-drafting study to explore potential future implementation pathways of circulating tumor DNA testing in oncology

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection has multiple promising applications in oncology, but the road toward implementation in clinical practice is unclear. We aimed to support the implementation process by exploring potential future pathways of ctDNA testing. To do so, we studied four ctDNA-testing applications in two cancer types and elicited opinions from 30 ctDNA experts in the Netherlands. Our results showed that the current available evidence differed per application and cancer type. Tumor profiling and monitoring treatment response were found most likely to be implemented in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within 5 years. For colorectal cancer, applications of ctDNA testing were found to be at an early stage in the implementation process. Demonstrating clinical utility was found a key aspect for successful implementation, but there was no consensus regarding the evidence requirements. The next step toward implementation is to define how clinical utility of biomarkers should be evaluated. Finally, these data indicate that specific challenges for each clinical application and tumor type should be appropriately addressed in a deliberative process involving all stakeholders to ensure implementation of ctDNA testing and timely access for patients.

Pre-analytical conditions and implementation of quality control steps in liquid biopsy analysis

Over the last decade, great advancements have been made in the field of liquid biopsy through extensive research and the development of new technologies that facilitate the use of liquid biopsy for cancer patients. This is shown by the numerous liquid biopsy tests that gained clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in recent years. Liquid biopsy has significantly altered cancer treatment by providing clinicians with powerful and immediate information about therapeutic decisions. However, the clinical integration of liquid biopsy is still challenging and there are many critical factors to consider prior to its implementation into routine clinical practice. Lack of standardization due to technical challenges and the definition of the clinical utility of specific assays further complicates the establishment of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in liquid biopsy. Harmonization of laboratories to established guidelines is of major importance to overcome inter-lab variabilities observed. Quality control assessment in diagnostic laboratories that offer liquid biopsy testing will ensure that clinicians can base their therapeutic decisions on robust results. The regular participation of laboratories in external quality assessment schemes for liquid biopsy testing aims to promptly pinpoint deficiencies and efficiently educate laboratories to improve their quality of services. Accreditation of liquid biopsy diagnostic laboratories based on the ISO15189 standard in Europe or by CLIA/CAP accreditation procedures in the US is the best way to achieve the adaptation of liquid biopsy into the clinical setting by assuring reliable results for the clinicians and their cancer patients. Nowadays, various organizations from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies collaborate to set a framework that will include all procedures from the pre-analytical phase and the analytical process to the final interpretation of results. In this review, we underline several challenges in the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) concerning standardization of protocols, quality control assessment, harmonization of laboratories, and compliance to specific guidelines that need to be thoroughly considered before liquid biopsy enters the clinic.