Background. Regulations for the selection of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for anti-EGFR treatment changed at the end of 2013.The set of mutations to be tested extended from KRAS codons 12 and 13 to KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4. A European external quality assessment scheme monitored the performance of laboratories and evaluated the implementation of the new regulations. Materials and Methods. The 131 participating laboratories received 10 samples of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material, including RAS (exon 2, 3, 4) and BRAF mutations. Mock clinical data were provided for three cases. Using their routine methods, laboratories determined the genotypes and submitted three written reports. Assessors scored the results according to predefined evaluation criteria. Results. Half of the participants (49.3%) had completely implemented the new test requirements (codons 12, 13, 59,

Biomarker analysis has become routine practice in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To ensure high quality testing, participation to external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is essential. This article provides a longitudinal overview of the EQA performance for EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 analyses in NSCLC between 2012 and 2015.The four scheme years were organized by the European Society of Pathology according to the ISO 17043 standard. Participants were asked to analyze the provided tissue using their routine procedures.Analysis scores improved for individual laboratories upon participation to more EQA schemes, except for ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC). For EGFR analysis, scheme error rates were 18.8%, 14.1% and 7.5% in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively. For ALK testing, error rates decreased between 2012 and 2015 by 5.2%, 3.2% and 11.8% for the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), FISH digital, and IHC subschemes, respectively. In contrast, for ROS1 error rates increased between 2014 and 2015 for FISH and IHC by 3.2% and 9.3%. Technical failures decreased over the years for all three markers.Results show that EQA contributes to an ameliorated performance for most predictive biomarkers in NSCLC. Room for improvement is still present, especially for ROS1 analysis.

Background and PurposeMolecular profiling should be performed on all advanced non-small cell lung cancer with non-squamous histology to allow treatment selection. Currently, this should include EGFR mutation testing and testing for ALK rearrangements. ROS1 is another emerging target. ALK rearrangement status is a critical biomarker to predict response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as crizotinib. To promote high quality testing in non-small cell lung cancer, the European Society of Pathology has introduced an external quality assessment scheme. This article summarizes the results of the first two pilot rounds organized in 2012–2013.Materials and MethodsTissue microarray slides consisting of cell-lines and resection specimens were distributed with the request for routine ALK testing using IHC or FISH. Participation in ALK FISH testing included the interpretation of four digital FISH images.ResultsData from 173 different laboratories was obtained. Results demonstrate decreased error rates in the second round for both ALK FISH and ALK IHC, although the error rates were still high and the need for external quality assessment in laboratories performing ALK testing is evident. Error rates obtained by FISH were lower than by IHC. The lowest error rates were observed for the interpretation of digital FISH images.ConclusionThere was a large variety in FISH enumeration practices. Based on the results from this study, recommendations for the methodology, analysis, interpretation and result reporting were issued. External quality assessment is a crucial element to improve the quality of molecular testing.

BackgroundTreatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of “hot-spot” codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients.MethodsOverall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC.ResultsA total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4–50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing.ConclusionOur findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.

Quality assurance is an indispensable element in a molecular diagnostic laboratory. The ultimate goal is to warrant patient safety. Several risks that can compromise high quality procedures are at stake, from sample collection to the test performed by the laboratory, the reporting of test results to clinicians, and the organization of effective external quality assessment schemes. Quality assurance should therefore be safeguarded at each level and should imply a holistic multidisciplinary approach. This review aims to provide an overview of good quality assurance practices and discusses certain risks and recommendations to promote and improve quality assurance for both diagnostic laboratories and for external quality assessment providers. The number of molecular targets is continuously rising, and new technologies are evolving. As this poses challenges for clinical implementation and increases the demand for external quality assessment, the formation of an international association for improving quality assurance in molecular pathology is called for.