Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples

C. Keppens, EMC. Dequeker, E. Rouleau, N. 't Hart, L. Bubendorf, K. Dufraing, C. Garrec, P. Guéguen, A. Lamy, A. Marchetti, P. Pauwels, A. Ryska, V. Tack, L. Tornillo, K. Van Casteren, JH. von der Thüsen, K. Zwaenepoel, B. Lissenberg-Witte, E....

. 2020 ; 20 (1) : 366. [pub] 20200501

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21012626

Grant support
Not applicable Pfizer Oncology

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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21012626
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210507101745.0
007      
ta
008      
210420s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s12885-020-06831-3 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32357863
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Keppens, Cleo $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
245    10
$a Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples / $c C. Keppens, EMC. Dequeker, E. Rouleau, N. 't Hart, L. Bubendorf, K. Dufraing, C. Garrec, P. Guéguen, A. Lamy, A. Marchetti, P. Pauwels, A. Ryska, V. Tack, L. Tornillo, K. Van Casteren, JH. von der Thüsen, K. Zwaenepoel, B. Lissenberg-Witte, E. Thunnissen, E. Schuuring
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a nemalobuněčný karcinom plic $x diagnóza $x enzymologie $x genetika $7 D002289
650    _2
$a erbB receptory $x genetika $7 D066246
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a genetické testování $x metody $x normy $7 D005820
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a longitudinální studie $7 D008137
650    _2
$a nádory plic $x diagnóza $x enzymologie $x genetika $7 D008175
650    12
$a mutace $7 D009154
650    _2
$a jednonukleotidový polymorfismus $7 D020641
650    _2
$a řízení kvality $7 D011786
650    _2
$a nádorové buňky kultivované $7 D014407
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Dequeker, Elisabeth M C $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
700    1_
$a Rouleau, Etienne $u Service de Génétique des Tumeurs, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France
700    1_
$a 't Hart, Nils $u Department of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands $u Department of Pathology, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Bubendorf, Lukas $u Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Dufraing, Kelly $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
700    1_
$a Garrec, Céline $u Institut de Biologie, CHU Hôtel Dieu, Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire, Nantes Cedex 1, France
700    1_
$a Guéguen, Paul $u CHRU Brest/Hôpital Morvan, Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire et d'Histocompatibilité, Brest, France
700    1_
$a Lamy, Aude $u CHU de Rouen / Hôpital Charles Nicolle, laboratoire de génétique somatique des tumeurs, Rouen Cedex, France
700    1_
$a Marchetti, Antonio $u Laboratory of Molecular Diagnostics, Center for Advanced Studies and Technology, University of Chieti, 66100, Chieti, Italy
700    1_
$a Pauwels, Patrick $u Department of Pathology, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium $u Centre for Oncological Research (CORE), University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
700    1_
$a Ryska, Ales $u Department of Pathology, Charles University Medical Faculty Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tack, Véronique $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
700    1_
$a Tornillo, Luigi $u Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland $u GILAB, Allschwil, AG, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Van Casteren, Kaat $u Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium $u Department of Pathology, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium $u Centre for Oncological Research (CORE), University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
700    1_
$a von der Thüsen, Jan H $u Department of pathology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Zwaenepoel, Karen $u Department of Pathology, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium $u Centre for Oncological Research (CORE), University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium
700    1_
$a Lissenberg-Witte, Birgit $u Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Thunnissen, Erik $u Department of pathology, VU University Medical Center (VUMC) Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Schuuring, Ed $u Department of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands. e.schuuring@umcg.nl
773    0_
$w MED00008171 $t BMC cancer $x 1471-2407 $g Roč. 20, č. 1 (2020), s. 366
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32357863 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210420 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210507101745 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1650899 $s 1133005
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 20 $c 1 $d 366 $e 20200501 $i 1471-2407 $m BMC cancer $n BMC Cancer $x MED00008171
GRA    __
$a Not applicable $p Pfizer Oncology
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210420
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options