TY - JOUR
T1 - Critical Assessment in Routine Clinical Practice of Liquid Biopsy for EGFR Status Testing in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
T2 - A Single-Laboratory Experience (LPCE, Nice, France)
AU - Heeke, Simon
AU - Benzaquen, Jonathan
AU - Hofman, Véronique
AU - Ilié, Marius
AU - Allegra, Maryline
AU - Long-Mira, Elodie
AU - Lassalle, Sandra
AU - Tanga, Virginie
AU - Salacroup, Carole
AU - Bonnetaud, Christelle
AU - Fayada, Julien
AU - Gazoppi, Loïc
AU - Ribeyre, Lydia
AU - Castelnau, Olivier
AU - Garnier, Georges
AU - Cattet, Florian
AU - Nanni, Isabelle
AU - de Fraipont, Florence
AU - Cohen, Charlotte
AU - Berthet, Jean Philippe
AU - Leroy, Sylvie
AU - Poudenx, Michel
AU - Marquette, Charles Hugo
AU - Denis, Marc G.
AU - Barlesi, Fabrice
AU - Hofman, Paul
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Afatinib
KW - Erlotinib
KW - Gefitinib
KW - Non-invasive assay
KW - Osimertinib
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071942955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cllc.2019.07.010
DO - 10.1016/j.cllc.2019.07.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 31519454
AN - SCOPUS:85071942955
SN - 1525-7304
VL - 21
SP - 56-65.e8
JO - Clinical Lung Cancer
JF - Clinical Lung Cancer
IS - 1
ER -