Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPatton, S
dc.contributor.authorNormanno, N
dc.contributor.authorBlackhall, Fiona H
dc.contributor.authorMurray, S
dc.contributor.authorKerr, K
dc.contributor.authorDietel, M
dc.contributor.authorFilipits, M
dc.contributor.authorBenlloch, S
dc.contributor.authorPopat, S
dc.contributor.authorStahel, R
dc.contributor.authorThunnissen, E
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-08T14:08:11Z
dc.date.available2014-07-08T14:08:11Z
dc.date.issued2014-07-01
dc.identifier.citationAssessing standardization of molecular testing for non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a worldwide external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for EGFR mutation testing. 2014: Br J Canceren
dc.identifier.issn1532-1827
dc.identifier.pmid24983368
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/bjc.2014.353
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/322581
dc.description.abstractBackground:The external quality assurance (EQA) process aims at establishing laboratory performance levels. Leading European groups in the fields of EQA, Pathology, and Medical and Thoracic Oncology collaborated in a pilot EQA scheme for somatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutational analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:EQA samples generated from cell lines mimicking clinical samples were provided to participating laboratories, each with a mock clinical case. Participating laboratories performed the analysis using their usual method(s). Anonymous results were assessed and made available to all participants. Two subsequent EQA rounds followed the pilot scheme.Results:One hundred and seventeen labs from 30 countries registered and 91 returned results. Sanger sequencing and a commercial kit were the main methodologies used. The standard of genotyping was suboptimal, with a significant number of genotyping errors made. Only 72 out of 91 (72%) participants passed the EQA. False-negative and -positive results were the main sources of error. The quality of reports submitted was acceptable; most were clear, concise and easy to read. However, some participants reported the genotyping result in the absence of any interpretation and many obscured the interpretation required for clinical care.Conclusions:Even in clinical laboratories, the technical performance of genotyping in EGFR mutation testing for NSCLC can be improved, evident from a high level of diagnostic errors. Robust EQA can contribute to global optimisation of EGFR testing for NSCLC patients.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 1 July 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.353 www.bjcancer.com.
dc.languageENG
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to British journal of canceren
dc.titleAssessing standardization of molecular testing for non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a worldwide external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for EGFR mutation testing.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentEMQN, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of Canceren
html.description.abstractBackground:The external quality assurance (EQA) process aims at establishing laboratory performance levels. Leading European groups in the fields of EQA, Pathology, and Medical and Thoracic Oncology collaborated in a pilot EQA scheme for somatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutational analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:EQA samples generated from cell lines mimicking clinical samples were provided to participating laboratories, each with a mock clinical case. Participating laboratories performed the analysis using their usual method(s). Anonymous results were assessed and made available to all participants. Two subsequent EQA rounds followed the pilot scheme.Results:One hundred and seventeen labs from 30 countries registered and 91 returned results. Sanger sequencing and a commercial kit were the main methodologies used. The standard of genotyping was suboptimal, with a significant number of genotyping errors made. Only 72 out of 91 (72%) participants passed the EQA. False-negative and -positive results were the main sources of error. The quality of reports submitted was acceptable; most were clear, concise and easy to read. However, some participants reported the genotyping result in the absence of any interpretation and many obscured the interpretation required for clinical care.Conclusions:Even in clinical laboratories, the technical performance of genotyping in EGFR mutation testing for NSCLC can be improved, evident from a high level of diagnostic errors. Robust EQA can contribute to global optimisation of EGFR testing for NSCLC patients.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 1 July 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.353 www.bjcancer.com.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record