Literature DB >> 29625250

External Quality Assessment Identifies Training Needs to Determine the Neoplastic Cell Content for Biomarker Testing.

Kelly Dufraing1, Gert De Hertogh2, Véronique Tack3, Cleo Keppens3, Elisabeth M C Dequeker4, J Han van Krieken5.   

Abstract

Neoplastic cell content determination is crucial for biomarker testing. It is known that interobserver variation exists, but largescale data are missing about variation in tumor delineation and cell content determination. Results were obtained from the external quality assessment program for metastatic colorectal cancer from the European Society of Pathology (N = 5776 observations). The study included three parts: current practices were surveyed, neoplastic cell content estimations and delineations were retrieved from stained slides, and clinical reports were analyzed. Seventeen of 43 pathologists determined the neoplastic cell content in a tumor-rich area for DNA extraction and took immune cells (n = 37), tumor cell distribution (n = 33), desmoplastic stroma (n = 30), necrosis (n = 29), and mucus (n = 23) into account. The selected area was highly variable, and the average difference between the highest and lowest estimation ranged between 51% and 78% (2011 to 2017). The number of overestimations was alarmingly high in samples containing <30% tumor cells. Of concern is that 33 of 105 laboratories reported a wild-type result in a sample without tumor in 2017. Standardization of neoplastic cell content determination is needed for test outcome interpretation. The authors' data show variation in estimation practices, tumor delineations and estimations, and interpretation problems (n = 226 reports). Further training for selecting the most suitable block and creating clear reports is urgently needed.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29625250     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  7 in total

Review 1.  FFPE-Based NGS Approaches into Clinical Practice: The Limits of Glory from a Pathologist Viewpoint.

Authors:  Filippo Cappello; Valentina Angerilli; Giada Munari; Carlotta Ceccon; Marianna Sabbadin; Fabio Pagni; Nicola Fusco; Umberto Malapelle; Matteo Fassan
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-05-05

2.  Conventional and semi-automatic histopathological analysis of tumor cell content for multigene sequencing of lung adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Daniel Kazdal; Eugen Rempel; Cristiano Oliveira; Michael Allgäuer; Alexander Harms; Kerstin Singer; Elke Kohlwes; Steffen Ormanns; Ludger Fink; Jörg Kriegsmann; Michael Leichsenring; Katharina Kriegsmann; Fabian Stögbauer; Luca Tavernar; Jonas Leichsenring; Anna-Lena Volckmar; Rémi Longuespée; Hauke Winter; Martin Eichhorn; Claus Peter Heußel; Felix Herth; Petros Christopoulos; Martin Reck; Thomas Muley; Wilko Weichert; Jan Budczies; Michael Thomas; Solange Peters; Arne Warth; Peter Schirmacher; Albrecht Stenzinger; Mark Kriegsmann
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2021-04

3.  European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects.

Authors:  Cleo Keppens; Kelly Dufraing; Han J van Krieken; Albert G Siebers; George Kafatos; Kimberly Lowe; Gaston Demonty; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples.

Authors:  Cleo Keppens; Elisabeth M C Dequeker; Etienne Rouleau; Nils 't Hart; Lukas Bubendorf; Kelly Dufraing; Céline Garrec; Paul Guéguen; Aude Lamy; Antonio Marchetti; Patrick Pauwels; Ales Ryska; Véronique Tack; Luigi Tornillo; Kaat Van Casteren; Jan H von der Thüsen; Karen Zwaenepoel; Birgit Lissenberg-Witte; Erik Thunnissen; Ed Schuuring
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys.

Authors:  Cleo Keppens; Ed Schuuring; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 6.  The Significance of External Quality Assessment Schemes for Molecular Testing in Clinical Laboratories.

Authors:  Nele Laudus; Lynn Nijs; Inne Nauwelaers; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Neoplastic cell percentage estimation in tissue samples for molecular oncology: recommendations from a modified Delphi study.

Authors:  Kelly Dufraing; J Henricus van Krieken; Gert De Hertogh; Gerald Hoefler; Anca Oniscu; Tine P Kuhlmann; Wilko Weichert; Caterina Marchiò; Ari Ristimäki; Aleš Ryška; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Elisabeth Dequeker
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 5.087

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.