The diagnosis of COVID‐19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single‐center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%‐71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR‐positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time‐dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.

Background: Most ALK-positive lung cancers will develop ALK-independent resistance after treatment with next-generation ALK inhibitors. MET amplification has been described in patients progressing on ALK inhibitors, but frequency of this event has not been comprehensively assessed. Methods: We performed fluorescence in-situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing on 207 post-treatment tissue (n=101) or plasma (n=106) specimens from patients with ALK-positive lung cancer to detect MET genetic alterations. We evaluated ALK inhibitor sensitivity in cell lines with MET alterations and assessed antitumor activity of ALK/MET blockade in ALK-positive cell lines and two patients with MET-driven resistance. Results: MET amplification was detected in 15% of tumor biopsies from patients relapsing on next-generation ALK inhibitors, including 12% and 22% of biopsies from patients progressing on second-generation inhibitors or lorlatinib, respectively. Patients treated with a second-generation ALK inhibitor in the first-line setting were more likely to develop MET amplification than those who had received next-generation ALK inhibitors after crizotinib (p=0.019). Two tumor specimens harbored an identical ST7-MET rearrangement, one of which had concurrent MET amplification. Expressing ST7-MET in the sensitive H3122 ALK-positive cell line induced resistance to ALK inhibitors that was reversed with dual ALK/MET inhibition. MET inhibition re-sensitized a patient-derived cell line harboring both ST7-MET and MET amplification to ALK inhibitors. Two patients with ALK-positive lung cancer and acquired MET alterations achieved rapid responses to ALK/MET combination therapy. Conclusions: Treatment with next-generation ALK inhibitors, particularly in the first-line setting, may select for MET-driven resistance. Patients with acquired MET alterations may derive clinical benefit from therapies that target both ALK and MET.

Genetic diversity among metastases is poorly understood but contains important information about disease evolution at secondary sites. Here we investigate inter- and intra-lesion heterogeneity for two types of metastases that associate with different clinical outcomes: lymph node and distant organ metastases in human colorectal cancer. We develop a rigorous mathematical framework for quantifying metastatic phylogenetic diversity. Distant metastases are typically monophyletic and genetically similar to each other. Lymph node metastases, in contrast, display high levels of inter-lesion diversity. We validate these findings by analyzing 317 multi-region biopsies from an independent cohort of 20 patients. We further demonstrate higher levels of intra-lesion heterogeneity in lymph node than in distant metastases. Our results show that fewer primary tumor lineages seed distant metastases than lymph node metastases, indicating that the two sites are subject to different levels of selection. Thus, lymph node and distant metastases develop through fundamentally different evolutionary mechanisms.