Search

Background Identification of tumor-derived variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has potential as a sensitive and reliable surrogate for tumor tissue-based routine diagnostic testing. However, variations in pre(analytical) procedures affect the efficiency of ctDNA recovery. Here, an external quality assessment (EQA) was performed to determine the performance of ctDNA mutation detection work flows that are used in current diagnostic settings across laboratories within the Dutch COIN consortium (ctDNA on the road to implementation in The Netherlands). Methods Aliquots of 3 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) plasma samples and 3 artificial reference plasma samples with predetermined mutations were distributed among 16 Dutch laboratories. Participating laboratories were requested to perform ctDNA analysis for BRAF exon 15, EGFR exon 18–21, and KRAS exon 2–3 using their regular circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) analysis work flow. Laboratories were assessed based on adherence to the study protocol, overall detection rate, and overall genotyping performance. Results A broad range of preanalytical conditions (e.g., plasma volume, elution volume, and extraction methods) and analytical methodologies (e.g., droplet digital PCR [ddPCR], small-panel PCR assays, and next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were used. Six laboratories (38%) had a performance score of >0.90; all other laboratories scored between 0.26 and 0.80. Although 13 laboratories (81%) reached a 100% overall detection rate, the therapeutically relevant EGFR p.(S752_I759del) (69%), EGFR p.(N771_H773dup) (50%), and KRAS p.(G12C) (48%) mutations were frequently not genotyped accurately. Conclusions Divergent (pre)analytical protocols could lead to discrepant clinical outcomes when using the same plasma samples. Standardization of (pre)analytical work flows can facilitate the implementation of reproducible liquid biopsy testing in the clinical routine.

Aim: Interprofessional education for health care professionals should be anchored at all training and study locations across Germany. In cooperation with the Medical Faculty Mannheim, an education concept trialed there, namely a longitudinal interprofessional learning sequence, was transferred and adapted to the Medical Faculty Dresden as part of the "Operation Team" support program. Here, the structured analysis and evaluation of the knowledge transfer experience is presented from the perspective of the transferee. From these findings, recommendations are derived for the planning of knowledge transfer projects.Methods: The consulting work between the two faculties was listed chronologically including knowledge transfer outcomes and was described and analyzed using the comparative categories identified in sociological systems theory and in the knowledge transfer literature. In addition, knowledge transfer outcomes were categorized according to their use and their relevance to the progress of the project was assessed.Results: The coordination teams initiated 13 consulting sessions, primarily held virtually or by telephone. From these, 36 knowledge transfer outcomes were identified, of which most were of high relevance for the transferee in all use categories. The knowledge transfer core themes were of a strategic (e.g. the consolidation of interprofessional teaching) and content-based/didactic-methodological nature (e.g. interprofessional session design, tutor training). Conclusion: The consulting sessions played a major role in facilitating the establishment of two interprofessional learning sequences and the piloting of the associated sessions at the Dresden site. The recommendations derived for a successful transfer could also be of help for other transfer projects., Zielsetzung: Interprofessionelle Lehrangebote sollen deutschlandweit an allen Ausbildungs- und Studienorten für Gesundheitsprofessionen verankert werden. Im Rahmen der Förderlinie "Operation Team" wurde in Kooperation mit der Medizinischen Fakultät Mannheim das dort erprobte Lehrkonzept eines longitudinalen interprofessionellen Lernstrangs an die Medizinische Fakultät Dresden übertragen und angepasst. Die strukturierte Analyse und Bewertung der Erfahrungen des Wissenstransfers wird aus Sicht des Transfernehmenden dargestellt. Daraus werden Empfehlungen für die Planung von Wissenstransferprojekten abgeleitet.Methodik: Die Beratungssituationen zwischen beiden Fakultäten wurden mit Wissenstransferoutcomes chronologisch aufgelistet und mithilfe der in der soziologischen Systemtheorie und Literatur zu Wissenstransfer identifizierten Vergleichskategorien beschrieben und analysiert. Die Wissenstransferoutcomes wurden zusätzlich nach ihrer Verwertung kategorisiert und ihre Relevanz für den Projektfortschritt eingeschätzt.Ergebnisse: Es fanden 13 Beratungen hauptsächlich in Form elektronischer Kommunikation auf Initiative der Koordinationsteams statt. Daraus wurden 36 Wissenstransferoutcomes mit größtenteils hoher Relevanz für den Transfernehmenden in allen Verwertungskategorien identifiziert. Grundthemen des Wissenstransfers waren strategischer (z.B. Verstetigung interprofessioneller Lehre) und inhaltlich/didaktisch-methodischer Natur (z.B. Konzeption interprofessioneller Lehre, Schulung von Lernbegleitenden).Schlussfolgerung: Durch die Beratungen wurde der Aufbau zweier interprofessioneller Lernstränge und die Pilotierung der dazugehörigen Lehrveranstaltungen am Standort Dresden maßgeblich erleichtert. Für andere Transferprojekte können die abgeleiteten Empfehlungen für einen gelingenden Transfer hilfreich sein.