Focused molecular analysis of small cell lung cancer: feasibility in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to identify molecular signatures in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) that may select patients who are likely to respond to molecularly targeted therapies. In this study, we investigate the feasibility of undertaking focused molecular analyses on routine diagnostic biopsies in patients with SCLC. METHODS: A series of histopathologically confirmed formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded SCLC specimens were analysed for epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR), KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations, ALK gene rearrangements and MET amplification. EGFR and KRAS mutation testing was evaluated using real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR cobas(®)), BRAF and NRAS mutations using multiplex PCR and capillary electrophoresis-single strand conformation analysis, and ALK and MET aberrations with fluorescent in situ hybridization. All genetic aberrations detected were validated independently. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients diagnosed with SCLC between July 1990 and September 2006 were included. 60 (57 %) patients had suitable tumour tissue for molecular testing. 25 patients were successfully evaluated for all six pre-defined molecular aberrations. Eleven patients failed all molecular analysis. No mutations in EGFR, KRAS and NRAS were detected, and no ALK gene rearrangements or MET gene amplifications were identified. A V600E substitution in BRAF was detected in a Caucasian male smoker diagnosed with SCLC with squamoid and glandular features. CONCLUSION: The paucity of patients with sufficient tumour tissue, quality of DNA extracted and low frequency of aberrations detected indicate that alternative molecular characterisation approaches are necessary, such as the use of circulating plasma DNA in patients with SCLC.

A comparison of methods for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

EGFR mutation testing of tumor samples is routinely performed to predict sensitivity to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. At least 9 different methodologies are employed in UK laboratories, and the aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of different methods for the detection of EGFR mutations. Participating laboratories were sent coded samples with varying mutation loads (from 0% to 15%) to be tested for the p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) missense mutation and c.2235_2249del exon 19 deletion. The p.L858R mutation and deletions within exon 19 of the EGFR gene account for ∼90% of mutation-positive cases. The 11 laboratories used their standard testing method(s) and submitted 15 sets of results for the p.L858R samples and 10 for the exon 19 deletion. The p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) mutation was detected at levels between 1% and 7.5% by Sanger sequencing, pyrosequencing, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), amplification refractory mutation system, and capillary electrophoresis single-strand conformation analysis. The c.2235_2249del mutation was detected at 1% to 5% by fragment size analysis, Sanger sequencing or real-time PCR. A mutation was detected in 24/25 (96%) of the samples tested which contained 5% mutated DNA. The 1% sensitivity claimed for commercial real-time PCR-targeted EGFR tests was achieved and our results show greater sensitivity for the Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing screening methods compared to the 10% to 20% detection levels cited on clinical diagnostic reports. We conclude that multiple methodologies are suitable for the detection of acquired EGFR mutations.

Comparison of molecular testing methods for the detection of EGFR mutations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue specimens of non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To conduct a methods correlation study of three different assays for the detection of mutations at EGFR gene in human formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FFPET) specimens of non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). METHODS: We conducted a 2-site method comparison study of two european conformity (CE) in vitro diagnostic (IVD)-marked assays, the cobas EGFR Mutation Test and the Therascreen EGFR29 Mutation Kit, and 2× bidirectional Sanger sequencing. We blind-tested 124 NSCLC FFPET specimens with all three methods; the cobas test was performed at both sites. Positive (PPA) and negative percent agreements (NPA) were determined for the cobas test versus each of the other two methods. Specimens yielding discordant test results between methods were further tested using quantitative massively parallel pyrosequencing (MPP). RESULTS: PPA between cobas and Sanger was 98.8%; NPA was 79.3%. Overall there were seven discordant results. MPP confirmed an exon 19 deletion in two cases and L858R mutation in four cases. PPA between cobas and Therascreen was 98.9% and NPA was 100%. There was one discordant result. Reproducibility of the cobas test between the two sites was 99.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The invalid rates for the cobas test and Therascreen were lower than Sanger sequencing. The cobas and Therascreen assays showed a high degree of concordance, and both were more sensitive for the detection of exon 19 deletion and L858R mutations than Sanger. The cobas test was highly reproducible between the two testing sites, used the least amount of DNA input and was the only test with automated results reporting.

Comparison of testing methods for the detection of BRAF V600E mutations in malignant melanoma: pre-approval validation study of the companion diagnostic test for vemurafenib.

BACKGROUND: The cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test is a CE-marked and FDA-approved in vitro diagnostic assay used to select patients with metastatic melanoma for treatment with the selective BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. We describe the pre-approval validation of this test in two external laboratories. METHODS: Melanoma specimens were tested for BRAF V600 mutations at two laboratories with the: cobas BRAF Mutation Test; ABI BRAF test; and bidirectional direct sequencing. Positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreements were determined between the cobas test and the other assays. Specimens with discordant results were tested with massively parallel pyrosequencing (454). DNA blends with 5% mutant alleles were tested to assess detection rates. RESULTS: Invalid results were observed in 8/116 specimens (6·9%) with Sanger, 10/116 (8·6%) with ABI BRAF, and 0/232 (0%) with the cobas BRAF test. PPA was 97·7% for V600E mutation for the cobas BRAF test and Sanger, and NPA was 95·3%. For the cobas BRAF test and ABI BRAF, PPA was 71·9% and NPA 83·7%. For 16 cobas BRAF test-negative/ABI BRAF-positive specimens, 454 sequencing detected no codon 600 mutations in 12 and variant codon 600 mutations in four. For eight cobas BRAF test-positive/ABI BRAF-negative specimens, four were V600E and four V600K by 454 sequencing. Detection rates for 5% mutation blends were 100% for the cobas BRAF test, 33% for Sanger, and 21% for the ABI BRAF. Reproducibility of the cobas BRAF test was 111/116 (96%) between the two sites. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to evaluate potential companion diagnostic tests in external laboratories simultaneously to the pivotal clinical trial validation. The health authority approved assay had substantially better performance characteristics than the two other methods. The overall success of the cobas BRAF test is a proof of concept for future biomarker development.