Cargando…

The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences

BACKGROUND: In 2014 the European Medicines Agency included exon 2, 3 and 4 KRAS and NRAS testing for the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients eligible for the therapy with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Normanno, Nicola, Pinto, Carmine, Castiglione, Francesca, Fenizia, Francesca, Barberis, Massimo, Marchetti, Antonio, Fontanini, Gabriella, De Rosa, Gaetano, Taddei, Gian Luigi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26335936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0655-1
_version_ 1782388504840372224
author Normanno, Nicola
Pinto, Carmine
Castiglione, Francesca
Fenizia, Francesca
Barberis, Massimo
Marchetti, Antonio
Fontanini, Gabriella
De Rosa, Gaetano
Taddei, Gian Luigi
author_facet Normanno, Nicola
Pinto, Carmine
Castiglione, Francesca
Fenizia, Francesca
Barberis, Massimo
Marchetti, Antonio
Fontanini, Gabriella
De Rosa, Gaetano
Taddei, Gian Luigi
author_sort Normanno, Nicola
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2014 the European Medicines Agency included exon 2, 3 and 4 KRAS and NRAS testing for the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients eligible for the therapy with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology and Cytology (SIAPEC) organized an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for CRC to evaluate inter-laboratory consistency and to ensure standardization of the results in the transition from KRAS to all-RAS testing. METHODS: Ten formalin fixed paraffin embedded specimens including KRAS/NRAS (exons 2, 3, 4) and BRAF (codon 600) mutations were validated by three referral laboratories and sent to 88 participant centers. Molecular pathology sample reports were also requested to each laboratory. A board of assessors from AIOM and SIAPEC evaluated the results according to a predefined scoring system. The scheme was composed of two rounds. RESULTS: In the first round 36 % of the 88 participants failed, with 23 centers having at least one false positive or false negative while 9 centers did not meet the deadline. The genotyping error rate was higher when Sanger sequencing was employed for testing as compared with pyrosequencing (3 vs 1.3 %; p = 0.01; Pearson Chi Square test). In the second round, the laboratories improved their performance, with 23/32 laboratories passing the round. Overall, 79/88 participants passed the RAS EQA scheme. Standardized Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature was incorrectly used to describe the mutations identified and relevant variations were noticed in the genotype specification. CONCLUSION: The results of the Italian RAS EQA scheme indicate that the mutational analyses are performed with good quality in many Italian centers, although significant differences in the methods used were highlighted. The relatively high number of centers failing the first round underlines the fundamental role in continued education covered by EQA schemes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4557483
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45574832015-09-03 The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences Normanno, Nicola Pinto, Carmine Castiglione, Francesca Fenizia, Francesca Barberis, Massimo Marchetti, Antonio Fontanini, Gabriella De Rosa, Gaetano Taddei, Gian Luigi J Transl Med Research BACKGROUND: In 2014 the European Medicines Agency included exon 2, 3 and 4 KRAS and NRAS testing for the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients eligible for the therapy with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology and Cytology (SIAPEC) organized an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for CRC to evaluate inter-laboratory consistency and to ensure standardization of the results in the transition from KRAS to all-RAS testing. METHODS: Ten formalin fixed paraffin embedded specimens including KRAS/NRAS (exons 2, 3, 4) and BRAF (codon 600) mutations were validated by three referral laboratories and sent to 88 participant centers. Molecular pathology sample reports were also requested to each laboratory. A board of assessors from AIOM and SIAPEC evaluated the results according to a predefined scoring system. The scheme was composed of two rounds. RESULTS: In the first round 36 % of the 88 participants failed, with 23 centers having at least one false positive or false negative while 9 centers did not meet the deadline. The genotyping error rate was higher when Sanger sequencing was employed for testing as compared with pyrosequencing (3 vs 1.3 %; p = 0.01; Pearson Chi Square test). In the second round, the laboratories improved their performance, with 23/32 laboratories passing the round. Overall, 79/88 participants passed the RAS EQA scheme. Standardized Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature was incorrectly used to describe the mutations identified and relevant variations were noticed in the genotype specification. CONCLUSION: The results of the Italian RAS EQA scheme indicate that the mutational analyses are performed with good quality in many Italian centers, although significant differences in the methods used were highlighted. The relatively high number of centers failing the first round underlines the fundamental role in continued education covered by EQA schemes. BioMed Central 2015-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4557483/ /pubmed/26335936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0655-1 Text en © Normanno et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Normanno, Nicola
Pinto, Carmine
Castiglione, Francesca
Fenizia, Francesca
Barberis, Massimo
Marchetti, Antonio
Fontanini, Gabriella
De Rosa, Gaetano
Taddei, Gian Luigi
The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title_full The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title_fullStr The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title_full_unstemmed The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title_short The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
title_sort italian external quality assessment for ras testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26335936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-015-0655-1
work_keys_str_mv AT normannonicola theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT pintocarmine theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT castiglionefrancesca theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT feniziafrancesca theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT barberismassimo theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT marchettiantonio theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT fontaninigabriella theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT derosagaetano theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT taddeigianluigi theitalianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT normannonicola italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT pintocarmine italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT castiglionefrancesca italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT feniziafrancesca italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT barberismassimo italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT marchettiantonio italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT fontaninigabriella italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT derosagaetano italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences
AT taddeigianluigi italianexternalqualityassessmentforrastestingincolorectalcarcinomaidentifiesmethodsrelatedinterlaboratorydifferences