Feasibility of next‐generation sequencing test for patients with advanced NSCLC in clinical practice. Issue 4 (21st December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ariyasu, Ryo; Uchibori, Ken; Ninomiya, Hironori; Ogusu, Shinsuke; Tsugitomi, Ryosuke; Manabe, Ryo; Sakamaoto, Hiroaki; Tozuka, Takehiro; Yoshida, Hiroshi; Amino, Yoshiaki; Kitazono, Satoru; Yanagitani, Noriko; Takeuchi, Kengo; Nishio, Makoto
• Is Part Of: Thoracic cancer. Volume 12:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 504
• Page End: 511
• Publication Date: 2020-12-21
• Subjects: ALK‐immunohistochemistry -- Cobas EGFR mutation test -- Oncomine Dx Target test -- real‐world analysis -- turnaround time; Chest -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Chest -- Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.99494005
• DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13786
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-7706

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The usefulness of the Oncomine Dx Target test (Oncomine Dx), a next‐generation sequencing (NGS) test, has already been proven in clinical trials. However, NGS requires high‐quality tumor samples and takes a long time to generate results. The feasibility of NGS for use in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in clinical practice has not yet been determined. Methods: Patients serially diagnosed with advanced NSCLC were evaluated in our hospital. The Oncomine Dx, Cobas EGFR mutation test (Cobas EGFR), and ALK‐IHC were performed. The patients were divided into four sets: the full analysis set (FAS) that referred to patients diagnosed with NSCLC, the intent to perform companion diagnostics (CDx) set (IPS) that referred to patients in which CDx had been ordered regardless of sample quality, the per‐performed CDx set (PPS) that referred to patients who could undergo CDx regardless of the results, and the per‐completed CDx set (CCS) that referred to patients in which informative results were received from the CDx. Results: The total number of patients analyzed in the study was 167. The IPS/FAS of Oncomine Dx (80.2%) was lower than that of the ALK‐IHC (85.0%) and Cobas EGFR (92.8%). The CCS/FAS of Oncomine Dx (65.9%) was lower than that of the ALK‐IHC (82.0%) and Cobas EGFR (92.2%). PPS/IPS and CCS/PPS of the Oncomine Dx with nonsurgical biopsy ranged between 78.6% and 90.9%, which was lower than those patients who underwent surgical resection (95.0% and 100%). Conclusions: The feasibility of Oncomine Dx in clinical practice was lower than the other CDx. The feasibility of Oncomine Dx will increase by improving the biopsy procedure. Key points: Significant study findings: The usefulness of a next‐generation sequencing (NGS) test has been proven in clinical trials. The feasibility of NGS is lower than other diagnostics in clinical practice especially with regard to nonsurgical biopsy. What this study adds: It is necessary to improve the feasibility of NGS in clinical practice. To improve NGS feasibility, turnaround time must be shortened, and larger samples must be obtained during surgical procedures. Abstract : The feasibility of Oncomine Dx in clinical practice is relatively low compared with that of the ALK‐IHC and Cobas EGFR.