Lindeman, Neal I.

Context.— Clinical testing for tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has evolved rapidly, but no practice guidelines exist. Objective.— To summarize cfDNA laboratory practices based on self-reporting and assess preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical trends that may influence the quality, accuracy, and consistency of cfDNA testing. Design.— Data were derived from the College of American Pathologists cfDNA proficiency testing program submitted by 101 participating laboratories from 2018 to 2019. Results.— Most laboratories performing clinical circulating tumor DNA testing are commercial/nonhospital (71.2%; 72 of 101) and international (77.2%; 78 of 101) laboratories. Commercial laboratories had higher monthly test volumes than hospital-based laboratories (median, 36 versus 7–8) and tended to have larger gene panels (median, 50 versus 11 genes) when panel-based testing was offered. The main clinical indications include therapy selection and treatment/disease monitoring. Plasma is the most commonly accepted specimen, which is predominantly collected in cell-stabilizing tubes. Equal proportions of laboratories use next-generation sequencing (NGS) and non-NGS methods to assess key genes, including EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1. Most laboratories reported a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 0.5%, variant allele frequency or less, which did not differ by method, NGS or non-NGS, except for EGFR. Sixty-five percent (17 of 26) of laboratories using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-NGS EGFR assay report analytical sensitivities higher than 0.5%, as compared to 15% (16 of 104) of laboratories using an alternative NGS or non-NGS method. There is also a wider range in LLODs obtained for the FDA-approved EGFR assay than nonapproved assays. Conclusions.— These results highlight emerging practice trends and serve as a foundation to initiate future practice recommendations.

High-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the endometrium are rare and account for <1% of all endometrial carcinomas. Both small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) morphologies have been reported. Little is known regarding the molecular features of endometrial NEC including how they compare to pulmonary NEC (the most common site for these neoplasms) and the more common endometrial carcinoma histotypes. In this study, we investigated the molecular alterations in a series of endometrial NEC using a targeted next generation sequencing panel (Oncopanel). Fourteen NEC were sequenced; pure NEC (n=4) and mixed (n=10) with endometrioid adenocarcinoma (n=9) or carcinosarcoma (n=1). The NEC components of mixed tumors comprised LCNEC (n=6) and SCNEC (n=4). The 4 pure NEC comprised LCNEC (n=2) and SCNEC (n=2). Molecular analysis classified tumors into the 4 The Cancer Genome Atlas groups: (1) POLE-mutated/ultramutated (1/14; 7%), (2) microsatellite instability/hypermutated (6/14; 43%), (3) TP53 mutated/copy number high (2/14; 14%), or (4) no specific molecular profile (5/14; 36%). Overall, 50% of cases were ultramutated or hypermutated. In 8 cases of mixed carcinomas, the different histologic components were macrodissected and separately sequenced; molecular alterations were nearly identical among the 2 components, with the non-NEC component harboring slightly increased tumor mutational burden. Only 2 carcinomas (both with pure SCNEC morphology) had a molecular profile that would be expected in typical pulmonary SCNEC (RB1 deletion and TP53 mutations). Our findings, similar to data from NECs of other anatomic sites, suggest that the molecular context may be important when selecting therapies for women with endometrial NEC. Immune checkpoint inhibition may be a reasonable approach to treatment of microsatellite instability-NEC and we thus recommend that all endometrial NEC be tested for mismatch repair abnormalities, either molecularly or by mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry.

e13681 Background: Cell-free tumor DNA or circulating tumor DNA tests are increasingly used in clinical care to detect somatic mutations from solid tumors. However, data on laboratory performance characteristics using standardized samples is limited. Methods: Well-characterized reference materials were used for the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cell-free tumor DNA proficiency testing surveys, which consisted of stabilized DNA fragmented to simulate cell-free DNA in a synthetic plasma matrix. For the 2018A, 2018B, 2019A and 2019B surveys, laboratories tested for hotspot mutations (single and dinucleotide sequence changes) in EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 at variant allele fractions ranging from 0.1% - 1.0%. As per CAP proficiency testing standards, results were scored according to the known mutation(s) engineered at designated variant allele fractions in each PT sample. Nine laboratories were excluded from analysis because they provided incomplete results. Statistical significance was calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 101 laboratories submitted survey results for at least one proficiency testing mailing. There were 5088 total proficiency testing responses for EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations across 12 different samples. For the 3585 responses submitted for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1, sensitivity ranged from 94.6 – 100%, while specificity exceeded 99%. There were no significant differences in performance between analytical methodologies for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations. Performance characteristics for EGFR mutations among the 1503 responses showed a combined sensitivity of 87.1% and specificity of 98.7%. For laboratories detecting mutations in EGFR, next-generation sequencing methods exhibited a sensitivity (true positivity) of 95.7% while the sensitivity of non-NGS methods was lower at 81.7% ( P= 0.02). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for clinical laboratories performing cell-free tumor DNA tests. For EGFR mutations, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods. These data suggest excellent overall agreement among laboratories performing clinical cell-free tumor DNA tests. Further investigation across variant allele fractions and additional variant types is warranted.

11085 Background: The College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) jointly initiated an effort to establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Methods: Three co-chairs without relevant conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the sponsoring societies: CAP (P.T.C.), IASLC (M.L.), and AMP (N.I.L.). Writing and advisory panels were formed from additional experts from these societies. Unbiased literature searches were performed to capture articles up to February 2012, yielding 1,533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for relevance. Evidence was formally graded for each of the recommendations first formulated by the co-chairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least two panelists. Successive drafts were circulated for comments to the writing panel, the advisory panel, the public (online posting), and the three professional societies. Results: We generated 37 guideline items addressing 14 areas of EGFR and ALK testing. The major, evidence-based recommendations are to test for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions in all patients with advanced stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, or smoking history, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. Recommendations and expert consensus opinions were generated for all other key aspects of EGFR and ALK testing in lung cancer related to oncology and pathology practice and technical issues in molecular testing. Conclusions: As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards and thereby improving patient outcomes.