Lockwood, Christina M.

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.

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.

Abstract Background: Enzymatic creatinine assays are routinely used in clinical laboratories to provide more accurate estimated glomerular filtration rates and to avoid a perceived lack of analytical specificity associated with picrate (Jaffe) methods. Negative interferences with the enzymatic creatinine assay, which we noted in several patients on dopamine or dobutamine, prompted our further investigation into interference of catecholamines with enzymatic methods. Methods: Spiked solutions of dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine were added to pooled sera at catecholamine concentrations consistent with clinically relevant dosing. Creatinine was measured enzymatically on the Roche P-Modular, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Vitros 350, and Abbott i-STAT. Jaffe methods were performed on the Roche P-Modular and Siemens Dimension RxL. In 10 patients receiving dopamine and/or dobutamine via a venous or arterial line we evaluated and compared the extent of in vivo creatinine interference in paired serum samples obtained by venipuncture and from indwelling catheters. Results: All catecholamines caused significant negative interference with the Roche enzymatic creatinine assay, most pronounced for dopamine and dobutamine. The Vitros enzymatic assay demonstrated slight negative interferences, and i-STAT enzymatic and Jaffe methods were unaffected by the presence of catecholamines. Significant (P < 0.001) differences in creatinine concentrations by Roche enzymatic vs Jaffe methods were observed in venipuncture specimens compared with arterial or venous catheter specimens, suggesting dopamine and dobutamine reversibly adhere to the catheter lumen. Conclusions: Negative interferences were pronounced for Roche enzymatic results in blood samples obtained from indwelling catheters, a phenomenon not observed in peripheral draws. Physicians and laboratorians should be alert to the possibility of a falsely low creatinine result and reevaluate questionable samples using a method unaffected by catecholamines.