Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing

Annette S. Kim, Angela N. Bartley, Julia A. Bridge, Suzanne Kamel-Reid, Alexander J. Lazar, Neal I. Lindeman, Thomas A. Long, Jason D. Merker, Alex J. Rai, David L. Rimm, Paul G. Rothberg, Patricia Vasalos, Joel T. Moncur

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. OBJECTIVE To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. RESULTS From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97%accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60%of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)838-841
Number of pages4
JournalJAMA oncology
Volume4
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
erbB-1 Genes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Kim, A. S., Bartley, A. N., Bridge, J. A., Kamel-Reid, S., Lazar, A. J., Lindeman, N. I., ... Moncur, J. T. (2018). Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing. JAMA oncology, 4(6), 838-841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021

Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing. / Kim, Annette S.; Bartley, Angela N.; Bridge, Julia A.; Kamel-Reid, Suzanne; Lazar, Alexander J.; Lindeman, Neal I.; Long, Thomas A.; Merker, Jason D.; Rai, Alex J.; Rimm, David L.; Rothberg, Paul G.; Vasalos, Patricia; Moncur, Joel T.

In: JAMA oncology, Vol. 4, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 838-841.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, AS, Bartley, AN, Bridge, JA, Kamel-Reid, S, Lazar, AJ, Lindeman, NI, Long, TA, Merker, JD, Rai, AJ, Rimm, DL, Rothberg, PG, Vasalos, P & Moncur, JT 2018, 'Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing', JAMA oncology, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 838-841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021
Kim AS, Bartley AN, Bridge JA, Kamel-Reid S, Lazar AJ, Lindeman NI et al. Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing. JAMA oncology. 2018 Jun 1;4(6):838-841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021
Kim, Annette S. ; Bartley, Angela N. ; Bridge, Julia A. ; Kamel-Reid, Suzanne ; Lazar, Alexander J. ; Lindeman, Neal I. ; Long, Thomas A. ; Merker, Jason D. ; Rai, Alex J. ; Rimm, David L. ; Rothberg, Paul G. ; Vasalos, Patricia ; Moncur, Joel T. / Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing. In: JAMA oncology. 2018 ; Vol. 4, No. 6. pp. 838-841.
@article{fcee1d92ee7e4387b4072cde5cdc5f80,
title = "Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. OBJECTIVE To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. RESULTS From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97{\%}accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60{\%}of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.",
author = "Kim, {Annette S.} and Bartley, {Angela N.} and Bridge, {Julia A.} and Suzanne Kamel-Reid and Lazar, {Alexander J.} and Lindeman, {Neal I.} and Long, {Thomas A.} and Merker, {Jason D.} and Rai, {Alex J.} and Rimm, {David L.} and Rothberg, {Paul G.} and Patricia Vasalos and Moncur, {Joel T.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "838--841",
journal = "JAMA oncology",
issn = "2374-2437",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of laboratory-developed tests and fda-approved assays for braf, EGFR, and kras testing

AU - Kim, Annette S.

AU - Bartley, Angela N.

AU - Bridge, Julia A.

AU - Kamel-Reid, Suzanne

AU - Lazar, Alexander J.

AU - Lindeman, Neal I.

AU - Long, Thomas A.

AU - Merker, Jason D.

AU - Rai, Alex J.

AU - Rimm, David L.

AU - Rothberg, Paul G.

AU - Vasalos, Patricia

AU - Moncur, Joel T.

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. OBJECTIVE To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. RESULTS From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97%accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60%of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.

AB - IMPORTANCE The debate about the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has focused attention on the analytical performance of all clinical laboratory testing. This study provides data comparing the performance of LDTs and FDA-approved companion diagnostics (FDA-CDs) in proficiency testing (PT) provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. OBJECTIVE To compare the analytical performance of LDTs and FDA-CDs on well-characterized PT samples and to compare the practice characteristics of laboratories using these assays. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparison of PT responses examines the performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists PT for 3 oncology analytes for which both FDA-CDs and LDTs are used: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. A total of 6897 PT responses were included: BRAF (n = 2524; 14 PT samples), EGFR (n = 2216; 11 PT samples), and KRAS (n = 2157, 10 PT samples). US Food and Drug Administration companion diagnostics and LDTs are compared for both accuracy and preanalytic practices of the laboratories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES As per the College of American Pathologists PT standards, results were scored and the percentages of acceptable responses for each analyte were compared. These were also broken down by the specific variants tested, by kit manufacturer for laboratories using commercial reagents, and by preanalytic practices. RESULTS From analysis of 6897 PT responses, this study demonstrates that both LDTs and FDA-CDs have excellent performance overall, with both test types exceeding 97%accuracy for all 3 genes (BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS) combined. Rare variant-specific differences did not consistently favor LDTs or FDA-CDs. Additionally, more than 60%of participants using an FDA-CD reported adapting their assay from the approved procedure to allow for a greater breadth of sample types, minimum tumor content, and instrumentation, changing the classification of their assay from FDA-CD to LDT. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs for 3 oncology analytes. More significantly, the majority of laboratories using FDA-CDs have modified the scope of their assay to allow for more clinical practice variety, rendering them LDTs. These findings support both the excellent and equivalent performance of both LDTs and FDA-CDs in clinical diagnostic testing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049754975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049754975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021

DO - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4021

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 838

EP - 841

JO - JAMA oncology

JF - JAMA oncology

SN - 2374-2437

IS - 6

ER -