Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

We report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in translating ctDNA results into clinical actions. METHODS: In this phase I study, QCMs with 14 clinically relevant mutations representing single nucleotide variants, insertions or deletions (indels), translocations, and copy number variants were sourced from three commercial manufacturers with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0%. Four laboratories tested samples in quadruplicate using two allele-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and three (amplicon and hybrid capture) next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. RESULTS: The two droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays reported VAF values very close to the manufacturers' claimed concentrations for all QCMs. NGS assays reported most single nucleotide variants and indels, but not translocations, close to the expected VAF values. Notably, two NGS assays reported lower VAF than expected for all translocations in all QCM mixtures, possibly related to technical challenges detecting these variants. The ability to call ERBB2 copy number amplifications varied across assays. All three QCMs provided valuable insight into assay precision. Each assay across all variant types demonstrated dropouts at 0.1%, suggesting that the QCM can serve for testing of an assay's limit of detection with confidence claims for specific variants. CONCLUSION: These results support the utility of the QCM in testing ctDNA assay analytical performance. However, unique designs and manufacturing methods for the QCM, and variations in a laboratory's testing configuration, may require testing of multiple QCMs to find the best reagents for accurate result interpretation.

Circulating tumor cell number and endocrine therapy index in ER positive metastatic breast cancer patients.

Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are prognostic in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The CTC-endocrine therapy index (CTC-ETI), consisting of CTC-ER (estrogen receptor), BCL2, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2), and Ki67 expression, might predict resistance to endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with ER-positive MBC. One hundred twenty-one patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative MBC initiating a new ET after ≥1 lines of ET were enrolled in a prospective, multi-institutional clinical trial. CTC-ETI and clinical/imaging follow-up were performed at baseline and serial time points. Progression-free survival (PFS) and rapid progression (RP; determined at the 3-month time point) were primary endpoints. Associations with clinical outcomes used logrank and Fisher's exact tests. At baseline, 36% (38/107) of patients had ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml whole blood (WB). Patients with ≥5 vs. <5 CTC/7.5 ml WB had significantly worse PFS (median 3.3 vs. 5.9 months, P = 0.03). Elevated CTC at 1 month was associated with even worse PFS (1.9 vs. 5.0 months from the 1-month sample, P < 0.001). Low, intermediate, and high CTC-ETI were observed in 71 (66%), 8 (8%), and 28 (26%) patients, with median PFS of 6.9, 8.5, and 2.8 months, respectively (P = 0.008). Patients with high vs. low CTC and CTC-ETI more frequently experienced RP (CTC: 66% vs. 41%; P = 0.03; CTC-ETI: 79% vs. 40%; P = 0.002). In conclusion, CTC enumeration and the CTC-ETI assay are prognostic at baseline and follow-up in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative MBC starting new ET. CTC at first follow-up might identify a group of patients with ER-positive MBC that could forego ET, but CTC-ETI did not contribute further.

Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer.

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."