• Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. · Aug 2019

    Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Methods Show Superior or Equivalent Performance to Non-NGS Methods on BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS Proficiency Testing Samples.

    • Lea F Surrey, Fredrick D Oakley, Jason D Merker, Thomas A Long, Patricia Vasalos, Joel T Moncur, and Annette S Kim.
    • From the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Dr Surrey) Peoria Tazewell Pathology Group, Peoria, Illinois (Dr Oakley); the Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Merker); Biostatistics (Mr Long) and Proficiency Testing (Ms Vasalos), College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois; Office of the Director, The Joint Pathology Center, Silver Spring, Maryland (Dr Moncur); and the Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Kim).
    • Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2019 Aug 1; 143 (8): 980-984.

    Context.—There has been a rapid expansion of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays for the detection of somatic variants in solid tumors. However, limited data are available regarding the comparative performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using standardized samples across a large number of laboratories.Objective.—To compare the performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using well-characterized proficiency testing samples provided by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Molecular Oncology Committee. A secondary goal was to compare the use of preanalytic and postanalytic practices.Design.—A total of 17 343 responses were obtained from participants in the BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, and the Multigene Tumor Panel surveys across 84 different proficiency testing samples interrogating 16 variants and 3 wild-type sequences. Performance and preanalytic/postanalytic practices were analyzed by method.Results.—While both NGS and non-NGS achieved an acceptable response rate of greater than 95%, the overall performance of NGS methods was significantly better than that of non-NGS methods for the identification of variants in BRAF (overall 97.8% versus 95.6% acceptable responses, P = .001) and EGFR (overall 98.5% versus 97.3%, P = .01) and was similar for KRAS (overall 98.8% and 97.6%, P = .10). There were specific variant differences, but in all discrepant cases, NGS methods outperformed non-NGS methods. NGS laboratories also more consistently used preanalytic and postanalytic practices suggested by the CAP checklist requirements than non-NGS laboratories.Conclusions.—The overall analytic performance of both methods was excellent. For specific BRAF and EGFR variants, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods and NGS laboratories report superior adherence to suggested laboratory practices.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.