Cargando…
FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing
AIMS: FOCUS4 was a phase II/III umbrella trial, recruiting patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, between 2014 and 2020. Molecular profiling of patients’ formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour blocks was undertaken at two centralised biomarker laboratories (Leeds and Cardiff), and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35256486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2022-208233 |
_version_ | 1783605652236533760 |
---|---|
author | Richman, Susan D Hemmings, Gemma Roberts, Helen Gallop, Niall Dodds, Rachel Wilkinson, Lyndsay Davis, Jonathan White, Rhian Yates, Emma Jasani, Bharat Brown, Louise Maughan, Tim S Butler, Rachel Quirke, Philip Adams, Richard |
author_facet | Richman, Susan D Hemmings, Gemma Roberts, Helen Gallop, Niall Dodds, Rachel Wilkinson, Lyndsay Davis, Jonathan White, Rhian Yates, Emma Jasani, Bharat Brown, Louise Maughan, Tim S Butler, Rachel Quirke, Philip Adams, Richard |
author_sort | Richman, Susan D |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: FOCUS4 was a phase II/III umbrella trial, recruiting patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, between 2014 and 2020. Molecular profiling of patients’ formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour blocks was undertaken at two centralised biomarker laboratories (Leeds and Cardiff), and the results fed directly to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and used for subsequent randomisation. Here the laboratories discuss their experiences. METHODS: Following successful tumour content assessment, blocks were sectioned for DNA extraction and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Pyrosequencing was initially used to determine tumour mutation status (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA), then from 2018 onwards, next-generation sequencing was employed to allow the inclusion of TP53. Protein expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and pTEN was determined by IHC. An interlaboratory comparison programme was initiated, allowing sample exchanges, to ensure continued assay robustness. RESULTS: 1291 tumour samples were successfully analysed. Assay failure rates were very low; 1.9%–3.3% for DNA sequencing and 0.9%–1.3% for IHC. Concordance rates of >98% were seen for the interlaboratory comparisons, where a result was obtained by both laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Practical and logistical problems were identified, including poor sample quality and difficulties with sample anonymisation. The often last-minute receipt of a sample for testing and a lack of integration with National Health Service mutation analysis services were challenging. The laboratories benefitted from both pretrial validations and interlaboratory comparisons, resulting in robust assay development and provided confidence during the implementation of new sequencing technologies. We conclude that our centralised approach to biomarker testing in FOCUS4 was effective and successful. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7614788 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76147882023-08-01 FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing Richman, Susan D Hemmings, Gemma Roberts, Helen Gallop, Niall Dodds, Rachel Wilkinson, Lyndsay Davis, Jonathan White, Rhian Yates, Emma Jasani, Bharat Brown, Louise Maughan, Tim S Butler, Rachel Quirke, Philip Adams, Richard J Clin Pathol Original Research AIMS: FOCUS4 was a phase II/III umbrella trial, recruiting patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, between 2014 and 2020. Molecular profiling of patients’ formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour blocks was undertaken at two centralised biomarker laboratories (Leeds and Cardiff), and the results fed directly to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and used for subsequent randomisation. Here the laboratories discuss their experiences. METHODS: Following successful tumour content assessment, blocks were sectioned for DNA extraction and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Pyrosequencing was initially used to determine tumour mutation status (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA), then from 2018 onwards, next-generation sequencing was employed to allow the inclusion of TP53. Protein expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and pTEN was determined by IHC. An interlaboratory comparison programme was initiated, allowing sample exchanges, to ensure continued assay robustness. RESULTS: 1291 tumour samples were successfully analysed. Assay failure rates were very low; 1.9%–3.3% for DNA sequencing and 0.9%–1.3% for IHC. Concordance rates of >98% were seen for the interlaboratory comparisons, where a result was obtained by both laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Practical and logistical problems were identified, including poor sample quality and difficulties with sample anonymisation. The often last-minute receipt of a sample for testing and a lack of integration with National Health Service mutation analysis services were challenging. The laboratories benefitted from both pretrial validations and interlaboratory comparisons, resulting in robust assay development and provided confidence during the implementation of new sequencing technologies. We conclude that our centralised approach to biomarker testing in FOCUS4 was effective and successful. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08 2022-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7614788/ /pubmed/35256486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2022-208233 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Richman, Susan D Hemmings, Gemma Roberts, Helen Gallop, Niall Dodds, Rachel Wilkinson, Lyndsay Davis, Jonathan White, Rhian Yates, Emma Jasani, Bharat Brown, Louise Maughan, Tim S Butler, Rachel Quirke, Philip Adams, Richard FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title | FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title_full | FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title_fullStr | FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title_full_unstemmed | FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title_short | FOCUS4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
title_sort | focus4 biomarker laboratories: from the benefits to the practical and logistical issues faced during 6 years of centralised testing |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35256486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2022-208233 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT richmansusand focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT hemmingsgemma focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT robertshelen focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT gallopniall focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT doddsrachel focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT wilkinsonlyndsay focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT davisjonathan focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT whiterhian focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT yatesemma focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT jasanibharat focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT brownlouise focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT maughantims focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT butlerrachel focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT quirkephilip focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting AT adamsrichard focus4biomarkerlaboratoriesfromthebenefitstothepracticalandlogisticalissuesfacedduring6yearsofcentralisedtesting |