4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biomarker analysis for colorectal cancer has been shown to be reliable in Europe with 97% of samples tested by EQA participants to be correctly classified. This study focuses on errors during the annual EQA assessment. The aim was to explore the causes and actions related to the observed errors and to provide feedback and assess any improvement between 2016 and 2017. An electronic survey was sent to all laboratories with minimum one genotyping error or technical failure on ten tumor samples. A workshop was organized based on 2016 survey responses. Improvement of performance in 2017 was assessed for returning participants ( n = 76), survey respondents ( n = 13) and workshop participants ( n = 4). Survey respondents and workshop participants improved in terms of (maximum) analysis score, successful participation, and genotyping errors compared to all returning participants. In 2016, mostly pre- and post-analytical errors (both 25%) were observed caused by unsuitability of the tumor tissue for molecular analysis. In 2017, most errors were due to analytical problems (50.0%) caused by methodological problems. The most common actions taken ( n = 58) were protocol revisions (34.5%) and staff training (15.5%). In 24.1% of issues identified no action was performed. Corrective actions were linked to an improved performance, especially if performed by the pathologist. Although biomarker testing has improved over time, error occurrence at different phases stresses the need for quality improvement throughout the test process. Participation to quality improvement projects and a close collaboration with the pathologist can have a positive influence on performance.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00428-019-02525-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

          Panitumumab, a fully human antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has activity in a subset of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although activating mutations in KRAS, a small G-protein downstream of EGFR, correlate with poor response to anti-EGFR antibodies in mCRC, their role as a selection marker has not been established in randomized trials. KRAS mutations were detected using polymerase chain reaction on DNA from tumor sections collected in a phase III mCRC trial comparing panitumumab monotherapy to best supportive care (BSC). We tested whether the effect of panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) differed by KRAS status. KRAS status was ascertained in 427 (92%) of 463 patients (208 panitumumab, 219 BSC). KRAS mutations were found in 43% of patients. The treatment effect on PFS in the wild-type (WT) KRAS group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59) was significantly greater (P < .0001) than in the mutant group (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.36). Median PFS in the WT KRAS group was 12.3 weeks for panitumumab and 7.3 weeks for BSC. Response rates to panitumumab were 17% and 0%, for the WT and mutant groups, respectively. WT KRAS patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; treatment arms combined). Consistent with longer exposure, more grade III treatment-related toxicities occurred in the WT KRAS group. No significant differences in toxicity were observed between the WT KRAS group and the overall population. Panitumumab monotherapy efficacy in mCRC is confined to patients with WT KRAS tumors. KRAS status should be considered in selecting patients with mCRC as candidates for panitumumab monotherapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PEAK: a randomized, multicenter phase II study of panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer.

            To evaluate panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 (codons 12 and 13) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A prespecified secondary objective was to assess treatment effects in an extended RAS analysis that included exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer: What Is the Optimal Strategy for Treatment?

              The BRAF activating mutation, harbored by approximately 10% of colorectal cancers (CRC), confers dramatic prognosis to advanced diseases. In early-stage setting, the identification of the BRAF mutation does not impact the therapeutic decision. Yet, the BRAF mutation could be considered as a stratification factor in adjuvant trials, because of its prognostic impact after relapse. Moreover, both BRAF mutation and mismatch repair (MMR) statuses should be determined in all CRC to help identify sporadic tumors versus Lynch syndrome-related tumors. Indeed, in patients with MMR-deficient (dMMR) tumors and MLH1 loss of expression, the BRAFV600E mutation indicates a sporadic origin. In advanced BRAF-mutated CRC, the standard of care remains fluoropyrimidine-based cytotoxic regimen in combination with bevacizumab. Although a recent meta-analysis showed that there was insufficient data to justify the exclusion of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, antiangiogenic agents should be preferred in the first-line setting. Despite the lack of a randomized phase 3 study dedicated to BRAF-mutated CRC, chemotherapy intensification combining a quadruple association of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI), and bevacizumab seems like a valid option. Although first results with BRAF inhibitors as single agents in BRAF-mutated CRC were disappointing, their association with therapies targeting the MAPK pathway seems to overcome the primary resistance to BRAF inhibition. In the field of sporadic CRC, the BRAF mutation is strongly associated with MMR deficiency. Considering breakthrough results of immune checkpoint inhibitors in dMMR repair tumors, determination of the MMR status appears to be mandatory. Given the dramatic prognosis conferred by the BRAF mutation, patients with BRAF-mutated advanced CRC need to be systematically identified and proposed for clinical trial enrolment in order to benefit from innovative therapies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cleo.keppens@kuleuven.be
                kelly.dufraing@kuleuven.be
                Han.vanKrieken@radboudumc.nl
                bert.siebers@radboudumc.nl
                gkafatos@amgen.com
                lowek@amgen.com
                gdemonty@amgen.com
                +3216 345881 , els.dequeker@kuleuven.be
                Journal
                Virchows Arch
                Virchows Arch
                Virchows Archiv
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0945-6317
                1432-2307
                5 February 2019
                5 February 2019
                2019
                : 475
                : 1
                : 25-37
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7884, GRID grid.5596.f, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, , University of Leuven, ; Kapucijnenvoer 35 block d, 1st floor, box 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0444 9382, GRID grid.10417.33, Department of Pathology, , Radboud University Medical Center, ; Geert Grooteplein 10 (route 812), P.O.Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen (824), The Netherlands
                [3 ]GRID grid.476413.3, Amgen Ltd, ; 1 Uxbridge Business Park, Sanderson Road, Uxbridge, UB8 1DH UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0657 5612, GRID grid.417886.4, Amgen Inc, ; One Amgen Center Drive, MS 17-2-A, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0609 2866, GRID grid.497511.f, Amgen Belgium S.A./N.V, ; Arianelaan 5, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
                Article
                2525
                10.1007/s00428-019-02525-9
                6611891
                30719547
                5e121fb0-927d-41ce-9955-b16b86a4b798
                © The Author(s) 2019

                OpenAccessThis 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.

                History
                : 2 August 2018
                : 5 December 2018
                : 10 January 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100002429, Amgen;
                Award ID: not applicable
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

                Pathology
                colorectal cancer,external quality assessment,molecular pathology,error analysis,corrective actions,biomarker analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article