Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

We evaluated saliva (SAL) specimens for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing by comparison of 459 prospectively paired nasopharyngeal (NP) or midturbinate (MT) swabs from 449 individuals with the aim of using saliva for asymptomatic screening. Samples were collected in a drive-through car line for symptomatic individuals (n = 380) and in the emergency department (ED) (n = 69). The percentages of positive and negative agreement of saliva compared to nasopharyngeal swab were 81.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.8% to 90.5%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 98.7% to 100%), respectively. The percent positive agreement increased to 90.0% (95% CI, 74.4% to 96.5%) when considering only samples with moderate to high viral load (cycle threshold [CT ] for the NP, ≤34). Pools of five saliva specimens were also evaluated on three platforms, bioMérieux NucliSENS easyMAG with ABI 7500Fast (CDC assay), Hologic Panther Fusion, and Roche Cobas 6800. The average loss of signal upon pooling was 2 to 3 CT values across the platforms. The sensitivities of detecting a positive specimen in a pool compared with testing individually were 94%, 90%, and 94% for the CDC 2019-nCoV real-time RT-PCR, Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay, and Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test, respectively, with decreased sample detection trending with lower viral load. We conclude that although pooled saliva testing, as collected in this study, is not quite as sensitive as NP/MT testing, saliva testing is adequate to detect individuals with higher viral loads in an asymptomatic screening program, does not require swabs or viral transport medium for collection, and may help to improve voluntary screening compliance for those individuals averse to various forms of nasal collections.

Molecular characterization of breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens by the 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score test.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent COVID-19 pandemic guidelines recommend genomic assessment of core biopsies to help guide treatment decisions in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive early-stage breast cancer. Herein we characterize biopsy and excisional breast cancer specimens submitted for 21-gene testing. METHODS: US samples submitted to Genomic Health for 21-gene testing (01/2004-04/2020) were assessed by pathologists and analyzed by a standardized quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Predefined cutoffs were: ESR1 (positive ≥6.5), PGR (positive ≥5.5), and ERBB2 (negative <10.7). ER status by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and lymph node status were determined locally. Median and interquartile range were reported for continuous variables, and total and percent for categorical variables. Distributions were assessed overall, by age, and by nodal involvement. RESULTS: Of 919 701 samples analyzed, 13% were biopsies and 87% were excisions. Initial assay success rates were 94.5% (biopsies) and 97.3% (excisions). ER IHC concordance with central ESR1 was 96.8% (biopsies) and 97.6% (excisions). Biopsy and excisional medians were: Recurrence Score results 16 (each); ESR1 10.2 (each); PGR 7.7 and 7.6; ERBB2 9.4 and 9.2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy submissions for 21-gene testing are common and consistently generate results that are very similar to the experience with excisions. The 21-gene test can be performed reliably on core biopsies.