Simon Heeke1, Jonathan Benzaquen2, Véronique Hofman3, Marius Ilié3, Maryline Allegra4, Elodie Long-Mira3, Sandra Lassalle3, Virginie Tanga4, Carole Salacroup5, Christelle Bonnetaud5, Julien Fayada4, Loïc Gazoppi4, Lydia Ribeyre4, Olivier Castelnau6, Georges Garnier7, Florian Cattet8, Isabelle Nanni9, Florence de Fraipont10, Charlotte Cohen11, Jean-Philippe Berthet11, Sylvie Leroy12, Michel Poudenx13, Charles Hugo Marquette2, Marc G Denis14, Fabrice Barlesi15, Paul Hofman16. 1. Institute of Research on Cancer and Ageing of Nice (IRCAN), Inserm U1081, CNRS UMR7284, Team 4, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, Nice, France. 2. Institute of Research on Cancer and Ageing of Nice (IRCAN), Inserm U1081, CNRS UMR7284, Team 4, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, Nice, France; Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Oncology, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France. 3. Institute of Research on Cancer and Ageing of Nice (IRCAN), Inserm U1081, CNRS UMR7284, Team 4, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, Nice, France; Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology (LPCE), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France; Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Nice, France. 4. Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology (LPCE), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France. 5. Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Nice, France. 6. Respiratory Diseases Department, Arnault Tzanck Institute, Saint-Laurent du Var, France. 7. Hematology-Oncology, CH Princess Grace, Monaco, Monaco. 8. Anesthesia Department, Parc Imperial Private Hospital, Nice, France. 9. Department of Molecular Oncology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. 10. Unité de Génétique Moléculaire, Maladies Héréditaires et Oncologie, CHU Grenoble Alpes, CS10217, Grenoble, France. 11. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France. 12. Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Oncology, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France. 13. Medical Center, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. 14. Laboratoire de Biochimie et Plateforme de Génétique Moléculaire des Cancers, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France; Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie et Immunologie, CRCINA, INSERM U1232, Nantes, France. 15. Aix-Marseille Université, CRCM, INSERM, CNRS, APHM, Multidisciplinary Oncology and Therapeutic Innovations Department, Chemin des Bourrely, Marseille, France. 16. Institute of Research on Cancer and Ageing of Nice (IRCAN), Inserm U1081, CNRS UMR7284, Team 4, Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, Nice, France; Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology (LPCE), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Nice, France; Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Université Côte d'Azur, CHU de Nice, University Hospital Federation OncoAge, Hospital-Integrated Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Nice, France. Electronic address: hofman.p@chu-nice.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of liquid biopsy using PCR-based assays into routine practice has had a strong impact on the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and is now commonly used for routine testing of EGFR mutations in certain clinical settings. To assess whether the claimed benefits of PCR-based assays hold true in daily practice at a multicenter clinical institution, we assessed how treatment decisions are affected by PCR-based assays for the analysis of EGFR mutations from plasma samples in a centralized laboratory (LPCE, Nice, France). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 345 samples were analyzed using the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and 103 using the Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit over 3 years (395 samples from 324 patients). Eleven plasma samples were validated independently using Cobas at 3 institutions, and 130 samples were analyzed using Stilla digital PCR. Clinical data were collected for 175 (54%) of 324 patients. RESULTS: Cobas was superior to the Therascreen assay and demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Digital PCR showed only 48%, 83%, and 58% concordance with Cobas for exon 19 deletions, L858R mutations, and T790M mutations, respectively. Liquid biopsies helped inform and change treatment when resistance occurred and enabled the detection of EGFR mutations in patients when biopsy tissue results were unavailable. CONCLUSION: PCR-based assays are a fast and convenient test, allowing the detection of primary and secondary EGFR mutations from plasma. Cobas proved to be a reliable test, whereas digital PCR produced too many inconclusive results to be currently recommended as a principal testing device.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of liquid biopsy using PCR-based assays into routine practice has had a strong impact on the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and is now commonly used for routine testing of EGFR mutations in certain clinical settings. To assess whether the claimed benefits of PCR-based assays hold true in daily practice at a multicenter clinical institution, we assessed how treatment decisions are affected by PCR-based assays for the analysis of EGFR mutations from plasma samples in a centralized laboratory (LPCE, Nice, France). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 345 samples were analyzed using the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and 103 using the Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit over 3 years (395 samples from 324 patients). Eleven plasma samples were validated independently using Cobas at 3 institutions, and 130 samples were analyzed using Stilla digital PCR. Clinical data were collected for 175 (54%) of 324 patients. RESULTS: Cobas was superior to the Therascreen assay and demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Digital PCR showed only 48%, 83%, and 58% concordance with Cobas for exon 19 deletions, L858R mutations, and T790M mutations, respectively. Liquid biopsies helped inform and change treatment when resistance occurred and enabled the detection of EGFR mutations in patients when biopsy tissue results were unavailable. CONCLUSION: PCR-based assays are a fast and convenient test, allowing the detection of primary and secondary EGFR mutations from plasma. Cobas proved to be a reliable test, whereas digital PCR produced too many inconclusive results to be currently recommended as a principal testing device.
Authors: Simon Heeke; Jonathan Benzaquen; Audrey Vallee; Maryline Allegra; Julien Mazieres; Julien Fayada; Jaya Rajamani; Michael Lee; Ellen Ordinario; Angelica Tiotiu; Jacques Cadranel; Michel Poudenx; Denis Moro-Sibilot; Fabrice Barlesi; Radj Gervais; Juliette Thariat; Virginie Tanga; Jacques Boutros; Marius Ilié; Véronique Hofman; Charles-Hugo Marquette; Marc G Denis; Paul Hofman Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-06