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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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