Search

Introduction: Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) has emerged as an efficient tool in clinical cancer diagnostics to broaden the scope from panel-based diagnostics to screening of all genes and enabling robust determination of complex biomarkers in a single analysis., Methods: To assess concordance, six formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens and four commercial reference standards were analyzed by WES as matched tumor-normal DNA at 21 NGS centers in Germany, each employing local wet-lab and bioinformatics. Somatic and germline variants, copy-number alterations (CNAs), and complex biomarkers were investigated. Somatic variant calling was performed in 494 diagnostically relevant cancer genes. The raw data were collected and re-analyzed with a central bioinformatic pipeline to separate wet- and dry-lab variability., Results: The mean positive percentage agreement (PPA) of somatic variant calling was 76 % while the positive predictive value (PPV) was 89 % in relation to a consensus list of variants found by at least five centers. Variant filtering was identified as the main cause for divergent variant calls. Adjusting filter criteria and re-analysis increased the PPA to 88 % for all and 97 % for the clinically relevant variants. CNA calls were concordant for 82 % of genomic regions. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status were concordant for 94 %, 93 %, and 93 % of calls, respectively. Variability of CNAs and complex biomarkers did not decrease considerably after harmonization of the bioinformatic processing and was hence attributed mainly to wet-lab differences., Conclusion: Continuous optimization of bioinformatic workflows and participating in round robin tests are recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MMT reports speaker and travel Expenses from Twist. JS reports speaker honoraria from DLS, Molecular Health, AstraZeneca and Biocartis, outside the submitted work. UL reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Menarini, advisory board from AstraZeneca and Novartis. DH reports speaker honorary AstraZeneca, adboard BMS, WD speaker honoraries BMS & Novartis. SMB reports speaker honoraria, advisory board fees and research grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Menarini, Novartis, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Molecular Health, Targos, DLS, Janssen, GSK, QuIP, outside the submitted work. SL reports research grant from BMS, advisory board/speaker invitation from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche and Takeda outside of this work. NTG reports research support from Janssen-Cilag and Advisory Boards from Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo and BMS outside the submitted work. WW reports research grants from Roche, MSD, BMS and AstraZeneca. Advisory board, lectures and speaker bureau fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, Amgen, Astellas, Illumina, Eisai, Siemens, Agilent, ADC, GSK und Molecular Health. SO received reimbursement for travel expenses and payment for conference presentations from Illumina Inc. and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. CS reports research funding from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie and institutional grants from Illumina outside the submitted work. CPS reports an investigator-initiated grant from Illumnia outside of the submitted work. PS reports grants from Inctye, BMS, Gilead, Falk, speakers bureau/advisory board from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Astellas, Janssen, Eisai, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim. DK reports personal fees for speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, personal fees for Advisory Board from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. NP reports speaker fees from Novartis, Bayer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, advisory board from Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Janssen, travel expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, Research grants from Illumina. JB reports grants from German Cancer Aid and consulting from MSD, outside the submitted work. AS reports participation in Advisory Board/Speaker’s Bureau for Astra Zeneca, AGCT, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Thermo Fisher, grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Providing patient access to precision oncology (PO) is a major challenge of clinical oncologists. Here, we provide an easily transferable model from strategic management science to assess the outreach of a cancer center., Methods: As members of the German WERA alliance, the cancer centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg and Augsburg merged care data regarding their geographical impact. Specifically, we examined the provenance of patients from WERA´s molecular tumor boards (MTBs) between 2020 and 2022 (n = 2243). As second dimension, we added the provenance of patients receiving general cancer care by WERA. Clustering our catchment area along these two dimensions set up a four-quadrant matrix consisting of postal code areas with referrals towards WERA. These areas were re-identified on a map of the Federal State of Bavaria., Results: The WERA matrix overlooked an active screening area of 821 postal code areas - representing about 50 % of Bavaria´s spatial expansion and more than six million inhabitants. The WERA matrix identified regions successfully connected to our outreach structures in terms of subsidiarity - with general cancer care mainly performed locally but PO performed in collaboration with WERA. We also detected postal code areas with a potential PO backlog - characterized by high levels of cancer care performed by WERA and low levels or no MTB representation., Conclusions: The WERA matrix provided a transparent portfolio of postal code areas, which helped assessing the geographical impact of our PO program. We believe that its intuitive principle can easily be transferred to other cancer centers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)