1. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Methods Show Superior or Equivalent Performance to Non-NGS Methods on BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS Proficiency Testing Samples
- Author
-
Patricia Vasalos, Annette S. Kim, Jason D. Merker, Lea F. Surrey, Fredrick D. Oakley, Thomas A. Long, and Joel T. Moncur
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,Rapid expansion ,General Medicine ,Computational biology ,Biology ,medicine.disease_cause ,DNA sequencing ,Pathology and Forensic Medicine ,03 medical and health sciences ,Medical Laboratory Technology ,030104 developmental biology ,0302 clinical medicine ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,medicine ,Proficiency testing ,KRAS - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF