Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35820813›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer.

Jennifer A Fairley, Melanie H Cheetham, Simon J Patton, Etienne Rouleau, Marc Denis, Elisabeth M C Dequeker, Ed Schuuring, Kaat van Casteren, Francesca Fenizia, Nicola Normanno and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Integrating ctDNA testing forAdvances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Liquid biopsies, are we ready for prime time?Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jennifer A FairleyGenQA, Nine, Edinburgh Bioquarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK. jenni.fairley@ed.ac.uk.
Melanie H CheethamEMQN CIC, Unit 4, Enterprise House, Pencroft Way, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK.
Simon J PattonEMQN CIC, Unit 4, Enterprise House, Pencroft Way, Manchester Science Park, Manchester, M15 6SE, UK.
Etienne RouleauMedical Biology and Pathology Department, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Marc DenisDepartment of Biochemistry and INSERM U1232, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, 9 quai Moncousu, F-44093, Nantes Cedex, France.
Elisabeth M C DequekerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35d, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Kaat van CasterenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35d, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Francesca FeniziaIQN Path ASBL, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Nicola NormannoIstituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131, Napoli, Italy.
Zandra C DeansGenQA, Nine, Edinburgh Bioquarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results.

methodsA collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018-19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants.

resultsThe overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2.

conclusionsThe variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsLung NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsGene FrequencyHumansMutationCell-Free Nucleic AcidsErbB ReceptorscfDNAEGFR EQALung cancerMutation testingNSCLC

Identifiers

PMID35820813
PMCPMC9275131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.