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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |