Clinical Testing for Tumor Cell-Free DNA.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
CONTEXT.—: Clinical testing for tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has evolved rapidly, but no practice guidelines exist. OBJECTIVE.—: To summarize cfDNA laboratory practices based on self-reporting and assess preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical trends that may influence the quality, accuracy, and consistency of cfDNA testing. DESIGN.—: Data were derived from the College of American Pathologists cfDNA proficiency testing program submitted by 101 participating laboratories from 2018 to 2019. RESULTS.—: Most laboratories performing clinical circulating tumor DNA testing are commercial/nonhospital (71.2%; 72 of 101) and international (77.2%; 78 of 101) laboratories. Commercial laboratories had higher monthly test volumes than hospital-based laboratories (median, 36 versus 7-8) and tended to have larger gene panels (median, 50 versus 11 genes) when panel-based testing was offered. The main clinical indications include therapy selection and treatment/disease monitoring. Plasma is the most commonly accepted specimen, which is predominantly collected in cell-stabilizing tubes. Equal proportions of laboratories use next-generation sequencing (NGS) and non-NGS methods to assess key genes, including EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1. Most laboratories reported a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 0.5%, variant allele frequency or less, which did not differ by method, NGS or non-NGS, except for EGFR. Sixty-five percent (17 of 26) of laboratories using the FDA-approved non-NGS EGFR assay report analytical sensitivities higher than 0.5%, as compared to 15% (16 of 104) of laboratories using an alternative NGS or non-NGS method. There is also a wider range in LLODs obtained for the FDA-approved EGFR assay than nonapproved assays. CONCLUSIONS.—: These results highlight emerging practice trends and serve as a foundation to initiate future practice recommendations.
