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were found to have suboptimal results, two leading oncologists to incorrect therapeutic prescriptions (Table) and one withdrawn.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
207P - Palbociclib (P) in patients (pts) with solid tumors with CDK4 or CDK6 amplification (amp): Results from the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) study
Presenter: Maged Khalil
Session: Poster session 01
208P - Identification of BCOR mutation as a novel predictor of immunotherapy efficacy in gastrointestinal tumors
Presenter: Wuping Wang
Session: Poster session 01
209P - Molecular atlas of copy number variation(CNV) in lung cancer with brain metastases
Presenter: Xianfeng Zhang
Session: Poster session 01
210P - Lung tumour vascularity is a risk factor for survival in NSCLC patients undergoing surgery
Presenter: Andrea Riccardo Filippi
Session: Poster session 01
211P - Cost-efficient detection of NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 gene rearrangements using the test for 5’/3’-end unbalanced expression: The analysis of 8075 patients
Presenter: Evgeny Imyanitov
Session: Poster session 01
212P - Extracellular vesicle miRNA as effective biomarkers for predicting antitumor efficacy in lung adenocarcinoma treated with chemotherapy and checkpoint blockade
Presenter: Si Sun
Session: Poster session 01
213P - Unlocking cancer treatment opportunities by population-based advanced diagnostics in Norway
Presenter: Hege Russnes
Session: Poster session 01
214P - PESSA: A shiny app for pathway enrichment score-based survival analysis in cancer
Presenter: Ying Shi
Session: Poster session 01
215P - Identifying predictors of overall survival among TMB-low cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Camila Xavier
Session: Poster session 01
216P - PTCH1 mutation as a potential predictor of immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal cancer
Presenter: Yang Tang
Session: Poster session 01