Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay for Detection of Plasma EGFR Mutations.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the early detection of tumor mutations for targeted therapy and the monitoring of tumor recurrence has been reported. However, the analytical validation of ctDNA assays is required for clinical application. METHODS: This study evaluated the analytical performance of the Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay compared with the cobas®EGFR Mutation Test v2. The analytical specificity and sensitivity were estimated using commercially pre-certified reference materials. The comparative evaluation of the two assays was carried out using reference materials and plasma derived from patients diagnosed with lung cancer. RESULTS: Using 20 ng of input cell-free DNA (cfDNA), the analytical sensitivities for EGFR mutations with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 1% and 0.1% were 100% and 100%, respectively. With VAFs of 1.2% and 0.1% using 20 ng of input cfDNA, seven out of nine different mutations in six driver genes were identified in the Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay. The two assays showed 100% concordance in 16 plasma samples clinically. Furthermore, various PIK3CA and/or TP53 mutations were identified only in the Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay. CONCLUSIONS: The Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay can be used to identify plasma EGFR mutations in patients with lung cancer, although further large-scale studies are required to evaluate the analytical validity for other types of aberrations and genes using clinical samples.

Possible False Results With cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 and Oncomine Dx Target Test for EGFR Mutation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Disparities in the results of next-generation sequencing-based multiplex gene panel tests and those of single-gene tests when detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported. However, the possible underlying causes have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the possibilities and causes of false results obtained using cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 (cobas® EGFR) and Oncomine Dx Target Test (ODxTT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of patients with NSCLC who underwent gene assessment using both cobas® EGFR and ODxTT between April 2021 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Disparate results of EGFR mutation analyses were then reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen patients were included in the analysis. The results of six samples were inconsistent. In four samples, exon 20 insertion mutations were detected using cobas® EGFR, but not identified using ODxTT. A fragment analysis was performed on three of the four samples, and all showed negative results for exon 20 insertion. Furthermore, one false negative result was obtained in the ODxTT for both exon 19 deletion and L858R mutations. For exon 19 deletion mutation, a single nucleotide variant from adenine to thymine was identified close to the mutation site. CONCLUSION: False positives for exon 20 insertion may occur when using cobas® EGFR, and false negatives for exon 19 deletion and L858R mutations may occur when using ODxTT.

Comparison of next-generation sequencing and cobas EGFR mutation test v2 in detecting EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: As the number of genetic mutations that must be tested increases, the Oncomine Dx Target test (ODxTT), which can simultaneously detect multiple cancer-related genes is becoming the main test used in preference to single-molecule testing. In this study, we evaluated the performance of ODxTT and cobas EGFR mutation test v2 (cobas EGFR), one of the single-molecule tests, in detecting EGFR mutations. METHODS: Samples from 211 patients diagnosed with NS-NSCLC were tested simultaneously or sequentially with the cobas EGFR mutation test and ODxTT. We compared the success and detection rates of both tests and evaluated their equivalence by determining the concordance rate and k-coefficient of both tests. RESULTS: The success rate in detecting EGFR mutations was 95.7% for ODxTT and 100% for cobas EGFR. EGFR mutations were detected in 26.5% of samples with ODxTT and in 28.0% with cobas EGFR. For the 200 samples successfully analyzed with both tests, the concordance rate and k-coefficient were 97.5% and 0.938, respectively. ODxTT failed to detect two exon 19 deletion mutations (p.E746_P753delinsVS and p.E746_P753delinsLS), and cobas EGFR failed to detect three instances of an exon 19 deletion (p.L747_P753delinsS), L861R, and an exon 20 insertion. DISCUSSION: The success rate of ODxTT is slightly inferior to that of cobas EGFR. ODxTT shared a high concordance rate and k-coefficient with cobas EGFR in detecting EGFR mutations, but discordant results between the two tests were observed in a few cases, mainly due to the difference of detectable EGFR variants.

Plasma screening for the T790M mutation of EGFR and phase 2 study of osimertinib efficacy in plasma T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer: West Japan Oncology Group 8815L/LPS study.

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy allows the identification of patients whose tumors harbor specific mutations in a minimally invasive manner. No prospective data have been available for the efficacy of osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who develop resistance to first- or second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and who test positive for the TKI resistance-conferring T790M mutation of EGFR by liquid biopsy. Therefore, a phase 2 study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of osimertinib in such patients. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced or recurrent NSCLC with known TKI-sensitizing mutations of EGFR, had documented disease progression after treatment with at least 1 first- or second-generation EGFR TKI, and were positive for the T790M mutation in plasma according to the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (Roche Diagnostics) or droplet digital polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were treated with osimertinib (80 mg/d) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) in patients positive for T790M in plasma by the Cobas assay. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and November 2017, 276 patients were screened for their T790M status with a liquid biopsy. Seventy-four patients were positive for T790M in plasma, and 53 of these individuals were enrolled in the study. The ORR for evaluable patients positive for T790M in plasma by the Cobas assay (n = 49) was 55.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.2%-69.3%). The median progression-free survival for all evaluable patients (n = 52) was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9-12.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the utility of liquid biopsy for the detection of T790M with the Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. Plasma genotyping with this assay is informative for treatment selection in clinical practice when tumor sampling is not feasible.

Comparison of cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and PANAMutyper-R-EGFR for Detection and Semi-Quantification of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Plasma and Pleural Effusion Supernatant.

BACKGROUND: Plasma epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation tests are less invasive than tissue EGFR mutation tests. We determined which of two kits is more efficient: cobas EGFR Mutation test v2 (cobasv2; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA) or PANAMutyper-R-EGFR (Mutyper; Panagene, Daejeon, Korea). We also evaluated whether pleural effusion supernatant (PE-SUP) samples are assayable, similar to plasma samples, using these two kits. METHODS: We analyzed 156 plasma and PE-SUP samples (31 paired samples) from 116 individuals. We compared the kits in terms of accuracy, assessed genotype concordance (weighted κ with 95% confidence intervals), and calculated Spearman's rho between semi-quantitatively measured EGFR-mutant levels (SQIs) measured by each kit. We also compared sensitivity using 47 EGFR-mutant harboring samples divided into more-dilute and less-dilute samples (dilution ratio: ≥ or <1:1,000). RESULTS: cobasv2 tended to have higher accuracy than Mutyper (73% vs 69%, P=0.53), and PE-SUP samples had significantly higher accuracy than plasma samples (97% vs 55-71%) for both kits. Genotype concordance was 98% (κ=0.92, 0.88-0.96). SQIs showed strong positive correlations (P<0.0001). In less-dilute samples, accuracy and sensitivity did not differ significantly between kits. In more-dilute samples, cobasv2 tended to have higher sensitivity than Mutyper (43% vs 20%, P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The kits have similar performance in terms of EGFR mutation detection and semi-quantification in plasma and PE-SUP samples. cobasv2 tends to outperform Mutyper in detecting less-abundant EGFR-mutants. PE-SUP samples are assayable using either kit.

Comparison of cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and PANAMutyper-R-EGFR for Detection and Semi-Quantification of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Plasma and Pleural Effusion Supernatant

BACKGROUND: Plasma epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation tests are less invasive than tissue EGFR mutation tests. We determined which of two kits is more efficient: cobas EGFR Mutation test v2 (cobasv2; Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA) or PANAMutyper-R-EGFR (Mutyper; Panagene, Daejeon, Korea). We also evaluated whether pleural effusion supernatant (PE-SUP) samples are assayable, similar to plasma samples, using these two kits. METHODS: We analyzed 156 plasma and PE-SUP samples (31 paired samples) from 116 individuals. We compared the kits in terms of accuracy, assessed genotype concordance (weighted κ with 95% confidence intervals), and calculated Spearman's rho between semi-quantitatively measured EGFR-mutant levels (SQIs) measured by each kit. We also compared sensitivity using 47 EGFR-mutant harboring samples divided into more-dilute and less-dilute samples (dilution ratio: ≥ or <1:1,000). RESULTS: cobasv2 tended to have higher accuracy than Mutyper (73% vs 69%, P=0.53), and PE-SUP samples had significantly higher accuracy than plasma samples (97% vs 55–71%) for both kits. Genotype concordance was 98% (κ=0.92, 0.88–0.96). SQIs showed strong positive correlations (P<0.0001). In less-dilute samples, accuracy and sensitivity did not differ significantly between kits. In more-dilute samples, cobasv2 tended to have higher sensitivity than Mutyper (43% vs 20%, P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The kits have similar performance in terms of EGFR mutation detection and semi-quantification in plasma and PE-SUP samples. cobasv2 tends to outperform Mutyper in detecting less-abundant EGFR-mutants. PE-SUP samples are assayable using either kit.

The Cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 assay.

Paul Brown speaks to Gemma Westcott, Commissioning Editor: Paul Brown has served as the Head of Roche Molecular Diagnostics at Roche Diagnostics Corporation since February 2010 having previously held a variety of positions within Roche Pharma. After completing his doctorate in organic chemistry he was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA, USA, but soon returned to his native UK to join Roche Pharma Research. Paul's first post within Roche was as group leader, doing drug discovery and making new small molecule drugs, but later moved into the business part of the company. Since then, he has enjoyed roles such as lifecycle leader for brands such as Tamiflu(®) and Xenical, vice president of sales and marketing of the pharmaceutical division and most recently general manager of Roche Pharma, Sweden.