Abstract 191P
Background
Biomarkers are fundamental to oncology, closely tying this practice to that of laboratory medicine. Results are required to be accurate, timely, comprehensive, and comprehendible. External proficiency testing is a key tool in maintaining quality. Traditional schemes test analytic accuracy. Here, we demonstrate the feasibility and utility of a novel end-to-end proficiency testing exercise examining the entire process of biomarker testing.
Methods
Challenge specimens were made using resected colon cancer tissue, each paired with a clinical vignette and distributed to participating labs. Participants were asked to provide all molecular testing required, which could include pre-analytic preparation, immunohistochemistry, gene sequencing, or other methodologies, and to draft and return a final report for each case upon completion. Reports were redistributed to an assessor team including oncologists, who chose therapy based on each lab’s biomarker report. Finally, participants were graded based on their ability to guide oncologists to the most appropriate treatment. Gold standard treatments for each case were decided by assessors prior to the exercise, based on reference results and clinical vignettes.
Results
Eight laboratories participated. Three laboratories were found to have suboptimal results, two leading oncologists to incorrect therapeutic prescriptions (Table) and one withdrawn. Turnaround time ranged from 6-86 days (median 24).
Table: 191P
Resulting number of medical oncologist assessors prescribing the optimal treatment choice based on reported results
Lab ID | ||||||||
Sample ID | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Gold Standard Treatment |
1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor |
2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Anti-EGFR mAb |
3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | BRAF Inhibitor + Anti-EGFR mAb |
Turnaround Time (Days) | 24 | 63 | 86 | 20 | 29 | 21 | 6 | 14 Days |
Conclusions
This is the first report of end-to-end proficiency testing, providing valuable insights into biomarker quality beyond analytic accuracy, including specimen management, communication, and turnaround time. Here, significant quality gaps were identified, generating opportunities for improvement. This paradigm shift in quality assurance to focus on the complete specimen journey is a promising tool in assessing and improving modern cancer care.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Canadian Pathology Quality Assurance - Assurance qualité canadienne en pathologie (CPQA-AQCP).
Funding
Canadian Pathology Quality Assurance - Assurance Qualité en Pathologie Canadienne (CPQA-AQPC) with funding from Pfizer.
Disclosure
M.D. Carter: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Honoraria: Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Incyte. S. Dudani: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Advisory Board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, Pfizer, Taiho; Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Merck, Pfizer. J.M. Loree: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Consulting: Ipsen, Novartis, Amgen, SAGA Diagnostics, Taiho; Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Research Grant: Foundation Medicine, Amgen, Ipsen, Personalis. S. Snow: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Advisory Boards/Consulting: Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Knight, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda; Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Member of Board of Directors: Lung Cancer Canada; Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Research Trials (Institutional Funding): Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi. S. Yip: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Incyte, Pfizer, Roche. B.S. Sheffield: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Consulting/Advisory Boards/Honoraria/Research Support: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cell Marque, Elevation Oncology, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, ThermoFisher, Turning Point Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
144P - Artificial intelligence supported treatment decisions for precision oncology
Presenter: Damian Rieke
Session: Poster session 01
145P - Identification of biomarkers of survival across multiple cancer types using eXplainable artificial intelligence
Presenter: Francesca Angileri
Session: Poster session 01
147P - Non-small cell lung cancer: Artificial intelligence enables the identification of survival signatures complementary to an Immunologically active gene expression signature involving previous therapies
Presenter: Pierre Saintigny
Session: Poster session 01
149P - Assessing the effect of single dose trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) on biological changes and pathological complete response (pCR) in ERBB2+ Breast Cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant BionHER study
Presenter: Nadia Gomez Serra
Session: Poster session 01
150P - Validation of a genomic assay in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer (BC) treated with trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP): A correlative analysis from PHERGain phase II trial
Presenter: Antonio Llombart Cussac
Session: Poster session 01
152P - Efficacy of olaparib in advanced cancers with germline or somatic tumor mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and ATM: A Belgian precision tumor-agnostic phase II study
Presenter: Sofie Joris
Session: Poster session 01
153P - Descriptive analysis of the location of point mutations in BRCA and the risk of breast or ovarian cancer diagnosis
Presenter: Pablo Torres-Mozas
Session: Poster session 01
154P - Highly sensitive serum volatolomic biomarkers for pancreatic cancer diagnosis and prognosis
Presenter: Alfredo Martínez
Session: Poster session 01