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were found to have suboptimal results, two leading oncologists to incorrect therapeutic prescriptions (Table) and one withdrawn.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
155P - Exploring the utility of serum anti-tNASP antibodies as a screening biomarker in prostate, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer
Presenter: Oleg Alekseev
Session: Poster session 01
156P - The association between fibrotic endotypes, determined by pre-treatment serum levels of collagen metabolites, and survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer
Presenter: Rasmus Pedersen
Session: Poster session 01
157P - CLDN18 fusions rather than expression is a biomarker related to the efficacy of paclitaxel in patients with ovarian metastasis of gastric cancer
Presenter: Pengfei Yu
Session: Poster session 01
158P - In silico analysis of HER2 enriched subtype and a HER2 index based on transcriptomic data of breast cancer compared to gastric and uterine serous carcinomas
Presenter: Arturo Gonzalez-Vilanova
Session: Poster session 01
159P - Better performance of pan-claudin18 antibodies on claudin18.2 detection in gastric adenocarcinoma than claudin18.2 specific antibody
Presenter: Shujuan NI
Session: Poster session 01
161P - Biomarkers of neoadjuvant combinational therapy for locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma
Presenter: Yue Wang
Session: Poster session 01
162P - MR imaging biomarkers profiles in patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy
Presenter: Angel Luis Sanchez Iglesias
Session: Poster session 01
163P - Genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and response to ABBV-400 treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors
Presenter: Jair Bar
Session: Poster session 01
164P - Early evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer
Presenter: Astrid Kramer
Session: Poster session 01