Analytical performance of Envisia: a genomic classifier for usual interstitial pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines specify that diagnosis of interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) requires identification of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern. While UIP can be identified by high resolution CT of the chest, the results are often inconclusive, making surgical lung biopsy necessary to reach a definitive diagnosis (Raghu et al., Am J Respir Crit Care Med 183(6):788-824, 2011). The Envisia genomic classifier differentiates UIP from non-UIP pathology in transbronchial biopsies (TBB), potentially allowing patients to avoid an invasive procedure (Brown et al., Am J Respir Crit Care Med 195:A6792, 2017). To ensure patient safety and efficacy, a laboratory developed test (LDT) must meet strict regulatory requirements for accuracy, reproducibility and robustness. The analytical characteristics of the Envisia test are assessed and reported here. METHODS: The Envisia test utilizes total RNA extracted from TBB samples to perform Next Generation RNA Sequencing. The gene count data from 190 genes are then input to the Envisia genomic classifier, a machine learning algorithm, to output either a UIP or non-UIP classification result. We characterized the stability of RNA in TBBs during collection and shipment, and evaluated input RNA mass and proportions on the limit of detection of UIP. We evaluated potentially interfering substances such as blood and genomic DNA. Intra-run, inter-run, and inter-laboratory reproducibility of test results were also characterized. RESULTS: RNA content within TBBs preserved in RNAprotect is stable for up to 14 days with no detectable change in RNA quality. The Envisia test is tolerant to variation in RNA input (5 to 30 ng), with no impact on classifier results. The Envisia test can tolerate dilution of non-UIP and UIP classification signals at the RNA level by up to 60% and 20%, respectively. Analytical specificity studies utilizing UIP and non-UIP samples mixed with genomic DNA (up to 30% relative input) demonstrated no impact to classifier results. The Envisia test tolerates up to 22% of blood contamination, well beyond the level observed in TBBs. The test is reproducible from RNA extraction through to Envisia test result (standard deviation of 0.20 for Envisia classification scores on > 7-unit scale). CONCLUSIONS: The Envisia test demonstrates the robust analytical performance required of an LDT. Envisia can be used to inform the diagnoses of patients with suspected IPF.

Does addition of BRAF V600E mutation testing modify sensitivity or specificity of the Afirma Gene Expression Classifier in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of BRAF mutation in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules and to investigate whether adding the BRAF test improves diagnostic accuracy of the Afirma Gene Expression Classifier (GEC). DESIGN: BRAF V600E mutational status was determined for DNA extracted from cytologically benign (n = 40), indeterminate (n = 208), and malignant (n = 48) fine-needle aspiration specimens previously categorized by GEC as molecularly Benign or Suspicious. Analytical performance of the BRAF assay was assessed to establish reproducibility and limits of detection. Molecular testing results were correlated with blinded expert histopathological diagnoses. RESULTS: The BRAF assay detected mutations reproducibly to 2.5% mutant allele frequency. The prevalence of BRAF mutations in cytologically benign specimens was 2 of 40 (5.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-16) and in cytologically malignant specimens was 36 of 48 (75.0%, 95% CI, 60-86). In the cytologically indeterminate category, 10.1% of specimens were BRAF+: 2 of 95 were subcategorized as atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (2.1%, 95% CI, 0-7); 1 of 70 as follicular neoplasm or suspicious for follicular neoplasm (1.4%, 95% CI, 0-9); and 18 of 43 as suspicious for malignancy (41.9%, 95% CI, 27-58). All BRAF+ specimens were classified as Suspicious by the GEC. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutations are uncommon in nodules with atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance or follicular neoplasm or suspicious for follicular neoplasm cytology. Most cytologically indeterminate nodules that proved to be malignant were also BRAF-, and all nodules that were false-negative by GEC were also BRAF-. Similarly, all BRAF+ specimens were also GEC Suspicious. Neither GEC test sensitivity nor specificity was improved by addition of BRAF mutation testing.

Analytical performance verification of a molecular diagnostic for cytology-indeterminate thyroid nodules.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to verify the analytical performance of the Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC) in the classification of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodule fine-needle aspirates (FNAs). DESIGN: Analytical performance studies were designed to characterize the stability of RNA in FNAs during collection and shipment, analytical sensitivity as applied to input RNA concentration and malignant/benign FNA mixtures, analytical specificity (i.e. potentially interfering substances) as tested on blood and genomic DNA, and assay performance studies including intra-nodule, intraassay, inter-assay, and inter-laboratory reproducibility. RESULTS: RNA content within FNAs preserved in FNAProtect is stable for up to 6 d at room temperature with no changes in RNA yield (P = 0.58) or quality (P = 0.56). FNA storage and shipping temperatures were found to have no significant effect on GEC scores (P = 0.55) or calls (100% concordance). Analytical sensitivity studies demonstrated tolerance to variation in RNA input (5-25 ng) and to the dilution of malignant FNA material down to 20%. Analytical specificity studies using malignant samples mixed with blood (up to 83%) and genomic DNA (up to 30%) demonstrated negligible assay interference with respect to false-negative calls, although benign FNA samples mixed with relatively high proportions of blood demonstrated a potential for false-positive calls. The test is reproducible from extraction through GEC result, including variation across operators, runs, reagent lots, and laboratories (sd of 0.158 for scores on a >6 unit scale). CONCLUSIONS: Analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity, robustness, and quality control of the GEC were successfully verified, indicating its suitability for clinical use.