Abstract
Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports.
Similar content being viewed by others
Background
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a diverse disease with numerous molecular subtypes [1,2,3,4], and improved outcomes can be obtained through the matching of targeted therapies to their oncogenic drivers [3, 5,6,7]. To select appropriate targeted therapy, comprehensive molecular testing is recommended [7,8,9,10]. Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-panel testing offers broad molecular testing, providing comprehensive identification of oncogenic drivers for optimising targeted treatment selection [8, 11, 12]. While broad molecular testing is recommended, adoption of NGS varies globally, and one of the barriers to its implementation is the lack of an accepted standard for reporting results [13,14,15]. Although guidelines for pathology reporting exist [15,16,17,18,19,20], they do not specifically address the complexities of NGS data. Oncologists have expressed more confidence using single-gene tests, finding reports on multimarker tumour panel tests complicated, emphasising a need for improved NGS reporting and interpretation [14, 21, 22]. Standardisation and guidelines for reporting and interpreting NGS results are required for effective implementation of NGS testing in clinical practice. Here, we provide recommendations for reporting NGS-based panel testing results in NSCLC.
Methods
Our recommendations were established through roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, which were organised and supported by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755) and EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755). All authors attended at least one of two meetings, in addition to medical writers who documented the discussions. A premeeting survey, developed with the guidance of Drs Malapelle and Rolfo, and completed by roundtable participants, gathered insights on current practices, key challenges, and areas for improvement for reporting NGS-based panel testing results based on the participants’ practical experience. The roundtable meetings discussed the needs of physicians, oncologists and pathologists, and aspects of NGS reporting that required improved standardisation. The recommendations based on these roundtable discussions are summarised below, and are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of NGS.
Discussion/Observations and recommendations
Pathophysiology of NSCLC and matching targeted treatments
NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease that can be broadly categorised by the presence or absence of oncogenic driver alterations [1,2,3,4]. Driver alterations are present in approximately 60% of lung adenocarcinoma cases, and define several molecular subtypes of NSCLC [3]. Targeted therapies matched to their oncogenic drivers are associated with improved survival and quality of life, and are recommended by clinical guidelines including European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) [3, 5,6,7]. The appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies in clinical practice requires timely and comprehensive molecular testing, including genetic alterations with frequencies ≤1%, such as RET- or neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK)-fusions for which effective targeted therapy is available [8, 23, 24]. With the growing number of targeted therapies that are approved/under development, clinical guidelines recommend broad genomic testing approaches, such as tissue and/or liquid biopsy NGS-based panel testing [7, 9, 10]. Broad molecular profiling can also interrogate relevant co-alterations, such as resistance mutations for targeted therapies, or Kelch-like ECH-associated protein-1 (KEAP1) and serine/threonine kinase 11 (STK11) mutations, which are associated with resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors [25].
Assessment of molecular alterations in NSCLC using NGS
NGS-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be tested simultaneously, conferring several benefits over sequential single-gene approach, including tissue preservation, potential cost savings, and faster identification of patients with therapeutically targetable molecular alterations [8, 11, 12].
NGS involves high-throughput and comprehensive sequencing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) [8, 12, 13, 26, 27]. DNA is more stable than RNA [28], facilitating convenient extraction from samples; however, DNA-based assays are less sensitive for gene fusions and alterations involving intronic regions (e.g. mesenchymal–epithelial transition factor exon 14 skipping) than RNA-based assays [26, 28]. Complementary NGS panels using DNA and RNA may therefore be required to cover all clinically relevant alterations with sufficient sensitivity [14, 27, 28].
Both DNA and RNA for NGS can be isolated from tumour specimens [21, 29, 30], and the majority of molecular testing has historically used tissue biopsies or cytological specimens as the ‘standard’ sample type [21, 29, 30]. However, circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in liquid biopsy can be used as an alternative source for NGS analysis [12, 29]. Moreover, circulating cell-free RNA (ccfRNA), including messenger RNA (mRNA) and micro RNA (miRNA), are also of interest as biomarkers for lung cancer, and liquid biopsy RNA sequencing is being developed [31, 32]. Liquid biopsy advantages include a minimally invasive collection procedure, repeatability, and, although so far not standard procedure, better evaluation of tumour heterogeneity and clonal evolution, with the ease of longitudinal monitoring of molecular response to treatment [12, 29, 33]. Limitations of liquid biopsy can include its lower sensitivity, with ctDNA NGS missing approximately one fifth of actionable alterations compared with gold standard tissue biopsy genotyping [34, 35]. Furthermore, cell-free DNA from non-tumour sources, including clonal haematopoiesis, may lead to false-positive findings, including KRAS and TP53 mutations [36]. NGS sequencing can be performed using commercially available kits or with laboratory-developed tests, which can vary in how many genes are covered, and the algorithms used to identify alterations [8, 14, 26]. Liquid and tissue biopsy-based NGS analysis are complementary methods that enhance detection and sensitivity when used together [37].
Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling [3, 6, 7, 9], the adoption of NGS-based panel testing varies globally due to differing awareness levels, turnaround times, quality, access, costs, and reimbursement by health insurance [38, 39]. In the US, a large proportion of patients with NSCLC (64%) are not able to benefit from precision medicine due to clinical practice gaps, including preanalytical biomarker testing and post-analytical practice challenges [40]. One of the barriers to successful implementation of NGS in NSCLC is a lack of standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of its results [13,14,15]. Given the variety of methods available, and the volume and complexity of data generated by NGS, greater standardisation in reporting practices is necessary for oncologists to optimise patient care [13, 15, 21]. This need was highlighted in a 2020 survey which found that oncologists were more confident using single-gene tests than whole-genome or -exome sequencing to make clinical decisions, and the use of multimarker tumour panel tests was regarded as more complicated than single-gene tests, highlighting the need for improved reporting and interpretation of results obtained from multimarker panel tests [14, 21, 22].
Existing guidelines for pathology reporting have been summarised previously [15,16,17,18,19,20]; however, with the increased use of NGS-based panel testing and complexity of the data generated, specific guidelines for reporting NGS results are required. In this manuscript, we provide recommendations for best practice for the reporting of NGS-based panel testing results in NSCLC.
NGS workflows
There is inherent variability in NGS workflows between countries and between institutions in the same country [8, 14, 21, 38, 41]. A standardised workflow that can be implemented globally is not currently feasible; however, most workflows follow the broad seven steps summarised below [8, 12, 14, 31, 33, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Our considerations for best practices and implications for reporting of NGS results, based on current evidence, are outlined in Fig. 1.
-
1.
NGS request: The process for requesting NGS testing varies and may involve reimbursement considerations [14, 43]. Typically this is done by the oncologist, pathologist, a multidisciplinary tumour board (MDTB) or molecular tumour board (MTB), or by reflex testing (i.e. following histological diagnosis, particularly in the case of advanced disease, the NGS test is immediately ordered by the pathologist), as determined by local guidelines [8, 14, 43].
-
2.
NGS assay: The patient’s clinical history, already known genetic alterations, previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy with specific searches for resistance alterations to targeted therapy, sample type, sample quality and quantity (tumour content), and required gene coverage are key factors in guiding the selection of appropriate assays (in addition to local availability of specific assays) [8, 15]. At this stage, histopathological review is essential to evaluate preanalytical variables relevant for test selection and interpretation, to inform optimal sample selection and, in case of rebiopsies, to confirm or update the diagnosis [33, 39, 50]. Details of the biopsy and key assay parameters or limitations including details regarding the gene coverage, limit of detection, and reference range, should be captured within the NGS report, to enable appropriate interpretation of the results [12,13,14,15, 21, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 38, 39]. In the report, a link could be included to the laboratory’s website containing information regarding the laboratory’s accreditation status, internal/external quality control, and mode of internal/external calibration of DNA/RNA measurements.
-
3.
Variant annotation and interpretation: There are several genomic knowledge bases available, but they vary in content, format, and evidentiary standards for actionability [13,14,15]. Links in the report to the used databases might be helpful and may avoid duplication of efforts to identify actionable alterations by the report recipients. Laboratories should follow applicable local guidelines to determine the most appropriate database for use in their practice [14, 15]. Inclusion of Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature in the report is helpful for standardisation of molecular descriptions [13, 15, 44]. However, this may not be the most effective way of communicating key genetic data to clinical users and when using HGVS nomenclature, we recommend the use of additional descriptors to enhance clarity (e.g. scientific nomenclature or appropriate alternative nomenclature); for example, the EGFR mutation c.2573T > G (HGVS nomenclature) should also be described as p.Leu858Arg (L858R; scientific nomenclature). Additionally, key information should be highlighted in a simple, easy to read and understandable format that facilitates interpretation of results [13]. Further recommendations for variant annotation are discussed in detail later in this manuscript.
-
4.
Communication: Where possible, early communication is recommended between the pathologist/molecular pathologist responsible for producing the NGS report and the oncologist, who will use the results, to discuss the results before the finalisation of the report [15]. The provision of clear questions from the oncologist to the pathologist/molecular pathologist, and discussion between the pathologist/molecular pathologist and the oncologist on findings and problems will help clarify what needs to be analysed and what information needs to be delivered in the report [15]. The report can then be tailored to address any questions and ensure all information is available in the version of record [15]. Although a discussion between the oncologist and pathologist is not required for every request, early communication when actionable alterations are detected can facilitate timely initiation of mutation-specific targeted treatment.
-
5.
Generate report: Key areas for improving standardisation of reports are the overall order, with actionable alterations and a summary on the first page, clarity in variant annotation and interpretation, and ensuring sufficient information on assay parameters and sample quality is included to fully interpret results [12, 13, 15]. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) on reporting criteria for medical laboratories (ISO 15189) also recommend the inclusion of interpretation of results, and where relevant with explanatory or cautionary notes [14, 21]. To ensure accessibility of results, reports should always be integrated into electronic medical records [13, 15]. This may also facilitate linking of multiple biomarker tests to provide complete information [13, 15]. While graphic representations in reports may facilitate understanding, integrating these into medical records requires further optimisation in some systems [44]. Recommendations for the report structure/format are discussed in detail later in this manuscript.
-
6.
Discussion: Depending on local guidelines and practices, a MDTB or MTB may discuss the NGS findings prior to a treatment decision [6, 12, 21, 39]. MDTBs/MTBs may facilitate decisions about the use of reflex testing in step 1 as part of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for liquid biopsy NGS analysis, and MDTBs/MTBs can provide valuable assistance to the oncologist in interpretation of the results, particularly where complex or rare variants are present [12, 14, 33]. The use of MTBs (including molecular pathologists, clinicians, geneticists, molecular biologists, and bioinformaticians) is recommended in the ESMO guidelines to improve the use of genetics-guided NSCLC care [6, 14]. Clinical context may also be needed when interpreting laboratory results, and the use of MDTBs can play an important role in providing clinical context to complex genetic information, which may optimise individual patient’s clinical management [21]. MDTBs are usually sufficient for typical mutations and first diagnosis cases, while MTBs may be more relevant for complex NSCLC cases (e.g. resistance to long-term targeted TKIs, and non-standard treatment options). Where appropriate, the use of virtual MDTBs/MTBs could be considered [21].
-
7.
Clinical decision: Based on the findings of the NGS report, and discussion with an MDTB/MTB if required, the oncologist will select the most appropriate treatment or, if needed, look into clinical trial matching of the patient [8, 47]. To prevent delays to treatment initiation, it is recommended to implement NGS testing SOPs that dictate time-frames for each step.
NGS reports
Overall structure and format
Given the volume of information generated by NGS testing, the results need to be structured such that information immediately relevant for clinical decision-making is readily available on the front page, while supporting and contextual information is contained on subsequent pages [13,14,15,16, 39]. A summary of the core elements that should be included, and which should be prioritised for inclusion on the first page is shown in Fig. 2.
In addition to the inclusion of unique patient identifiers, sample number, and dates relating to specimen collection and laboratory receipt, a section describing a minimal set of clinical information needed to interpret results should be included on the front page of the report [14,15,16, 20, 21, 51]. These parameters should include referral reason and clinical information such as age, biopsy type, site of biopsy, and where possible: smoking history, primary tumour type, clinical stage of the disease, previous molecular testing, line of therapy, and type(s) of therapy received prior to biopsy [14,15,16, 51]. While clinical information may be more readily available for in-house reports, for samples referred to external laboratories, it is useful if this additional demographic data is provided to the laboratory together with the ordering physician’s contact details, to allow for personal discussion on complex cases. This is particularly relevant when results are being reviewed in MDTBs/MTBs, to ensure NGS findings can be discussed in the clinical context of the patient. If other NGS/biomarker analyses have been done, results should be included in the report so that sequential results (e.g. with serial liquid biopsy) can be reviewed during the discussion session, for evaluating tumour evolution and most appropriate treatment(s) or sequence of treatments [8, 13, 16, 52].
A clear summary of any actionable, potentially actionable alterations, negative results for common actionable genes (including, as relevant, any caveats regarding the potential for false-negatives), and a list of relevant treatments, should be included on the first page, and annotated according to the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) or a comparable locally implemented scoring system to enhance the readibility [8, 14,15,16, 21, 52]. This summary with the relevant interpretation and advice should be prominent and easy to understand to minimise the risk of missed opportunities to match patients with appropriate therapies or relevant clinical trials [14,15,16, 20, 51, 52]. This is particularly important outside of academic centres where oncologists may be working across several tumour types, and be less familiar with implications of specific alterations in NSCLC. In addition to actionable driver alterations, the report may highlight potentially relevant co-mutations for targeted therapies or immunotherapy [25]. This section can support multidisciplinary discussion to clarify the clinical relevance of the co-mutational profile and so inform treatment decisions. Variants of unknown significance in any gene should also be captured to support future clinical decision-making in cases where the clinical significance of the variant is subsequently upgraded [53]. However, this should be separate from the actionable and potentially actionable alterations that are highlighted on the first page [13]. Interpretation of results may be complicated if many variants of unknown significance are identified with large NGS panels, and tier-based reporting and the use of ESCAT rankings can help to improve interpretation of the results [13, 21, 33, 52].
Additional sections to provide on subsequent pages include technical parameters of the assay used, sample quality (however, if the sample quality is poor, this should be highlighted on the first page of the report), relevant medical literature information where appropriate, and any required disclaimers [14,15,16, 20, 51].
Variant annotation and interpretation
To ensure a universal language, nomenclature used to describe alterations should follow HGVS recommendations, providing a description of variants at the DNA/RNA level in relation to the reference sequence [13, 18, 44, 54, 55], and should include the HGVS nomenclature version being used [19, 54]. However, scientific/alternative nomenclature should also be included, with alterations being described by commonly used and easily interpretable descriptions, which may be more familiar to oncologists [14, 15, 51]. For example, reporting of the EGFR mutation c.2369C > T (HGVS nomenclature) should be accompanied by a common descriptor such as p.Thr790Met or T790M. In addition, identifying insertions and deletions, or exon skipping mutations, from HGVS nomenclature requires knowledge of exon boundaries, and additional descriptors may be needed to provide clarity to the oncologist [14, 15, 51, 54, 55]. Inclusion of alternative or outdated gene names (e.g. HER2) should be considered to further aid oncologist recognition. The report may also annotate any germline variants identified, if assessed by the assay, considering issues around patient consent and preference regarding disclosure of germline variants [56]. Defining terminology, such as variant allele frequency and single nucleotide variants, in an appendix can also be considered to facilitate understanding of the findings of the report [51].
Inclusion of clinical significance of variants detected is strongly recommended; however, this relies on databases which will vary between regions and are often updated [13, 47]. The report should include a listing of the databases used (with the date of data retrieval), which may be achieved using text modules, and the incorporation of this information in the report would improve the transparency of how the data were obtained.
Actionable alterations are those which have approved targeted therapies [2, 3, 5, 6, 39]. Treatment guidelines adapted to regional regulatory approvals and drug availability should be used to determine which alterations are actionable [3, 6, 7]. Using either ESCAT, ESCAT-like scoring systems, or separate listings of actionable alterations according to the local approval status, improves interpretation and facilitates the use of the report by oncologists [21, 39, 52].
Potentially actionable alterations are those for which a matching targeted therapy may be available via clinical trials, and should be listed separately to actionable alterations [8, 15, 47]. Inclusion of local resources, such as regional study centre websites, is encouraged. Identifying locally available clinical trials for potentially actionable alterations may fall beyond the scope of work conducted by a laboratory but can also be discussed by MTBs [47]. Networking with larger academic centres or research associations may enable smaller diagnostic units to provide information about clinical trials. Of note, matching patients with potential clinical trials may provide an important route for drug access in regions where drug availability is a barrier.
Assay-specific parameters and limitations
In the report, information regarding assay specific parameters and limitations should include a list of genes (with information regarding the exon coverage) that are covered and the types of alterations (mutations, copy number gains, fusions), germline variant analysis, version of the kit used, manufacturer details and instrument types, limit of detection/sensitivity (lowest detection limit for copy number alterations of the assay, analytical and technical sensitivity of the assay), coverage/specificity (read depth and completeness, with reporting of any potential presence of contamination that may limit analysis), reference range, analytical range (gene panel size; and if needed in the case of particularly large panels, the details of the assessed genes can be provided in a supplementary section), and enrichment techniques [8, 12, 14,15,16, 20, 48, 51, 57].
A clear discussion of potential technical shortcomings of the employed assay should be included, e.g. false negative rates of DNA-based panels or amplicon-based techniques for fusions and rare alterations, or the inability to determine the expression of novel fusions based on DNA-based assays; such information will also assist in the planning of additional testing [14, 16, 51, 57, 58]. If applicable, a note on limitations for particular types of panels can also be included (e.g. the limitations for detecting fusions with DNA-based panels), and if additional tests are recommended (e.g. RNA-based NGS or immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess the expression of novel fusions) [15, 16, 58]. In addition, the report can identify patients whose available results may suggest limited benefit from further testing, such as those with KRAS mutations [7].
Further awareness regarding which panels/analytical approaches are validated for clinical use, and how suitable different assays are for detecting relevant variants, would be valuable to aid interpretation of results [13].
Sample quality
Differences in preanalytical conditions impact the interpretation of NGS results and must therefore be captured within the report [14, 57]. To facilitate understanding, this section of the report should be highly structured with interpretation by the pathologist. Relevant information that should be documented in this section of the report includes: (i) type of specimen, specimen identifier, and date of biopsy [14, 15]; (ii) sample quality, including percentage of tumour cells (utilisation of any tumour cell enrichment techniques [macro- or microdissection] should be included), DNA quality score, and extent of necrosis [14, 33, 51, 57]; (iii) how much, if any, material remains for additional analyses; (iv) DNA/RNA concentration/amount; or for liquid biopsy, circulating free DNA (cfDNA)-specific parameters including plasma volume, total cfDNA amount, cfDNA concentration, amount of available ctDNA, and ctDNA tumour fraction, where feasible [14, 16]; (v) contact data of the responsible molecular pathologist who is able to help the clinician interpret/use the report. For liquid biopsies, pre-analytical variables could be included (e.g. date/time of blood draw, date/time of laboratory receipt for separation/extraction).
The sample quality section is essential for interpreting the strength of any findings. This section should be highly structured with a clear interpretation by the pathologist, with any limitations or cautionary comments clearly noted [14, 16, 21, 51]. For example, where the neoplastic cell content was below the required threshold, the report should indicate if biomarker-negative results should be regarded as inconclusive [57], while, for liquid biopsies with low tumour fraction, the elevated risk of false-negative and false-positive findings should be noted [59, 60]. In cases where no alterations are found, this information will be used to differentiate negative findings from a non-diagnostic report and inform the appropriate course of action, such as the need for complementary testing.
Future directions
Future directions in this landscape may include: (i) the integration of complementary tests such as liquid and tissue biopsy data in the report to provide complete biomarker reporting (e.g. inclusion of programmed death-ligand 1 expression status from tissue biopsy assessed through immunohistochemistry, together with other druggable genetic alterations identified through plasma NGS); (ii) utilisation of serial NGS (plasma or tissue) for disease/longitudinal monitoring of: genetic alterations/biological changes in the disease over time including mutant allele frequency (MAF)/clonal fluctuations, response to treatment, and acquired resistance mechanisms; (iii) development of predictive markers to new targeted agents, or for immunotherapy – potential predictive markers in the liquid microenvironment; (iv) further integrating the impact of co-mutations on targeted therapies or immunotherapy; (v) following tumour resection in the early stage of the disease, potential assessment of minimal residual disease based on plasma tumour genetic material; (vi) utilisation of DNA methylation biomarkers to facilitate early detection of NSCLC, gain insights into epigenetic alterations, and predict prognosis; (vii) in addition to ctDNA, analysis of other plasma analytes that may provide valuable information about other biomarkers; (viii) gene cluster identification in NSCLC to identify patterns of resistance, predict treatment response, and guide alternative treatment strategies; (ix) using a graphic summary (similar to a heat map) to help clinicians understand in one glance what targetable drivers have been tested, if they are positive or negative, and which ones have not been evaluated yet; (x) using soft reports/electronic pathology reports with links to big data (e.g. large-scale genomic/genetic/proteomic databases), to facilitate diagnosis, staging and treatment; (xi) using ctDNA tumour fraction to guide confirmatory tissue testing; and (xii) investigating the potential of digital pathology and artificial intelligence to predict biomarkers from histopathology scans [30, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. A growing field of interest is the implementation of minimal residual disease (MRD) platforms, as well as the usage of cfDNA, as surrogate markers post-definitive therapy in early disease (surgery and/or radiation) [68]. Currently, there is limited data available in order to have a solid statement associated with this arena, however we believe that both cfDNA and methylation-based technologies will be part of our future practice in the near future.
Conclusions
Overall, the oncologists’ need for clear and concise information to enable clinical decision-making requires the provision of all necessary information to accurately interpret NGS findings, which can be achieved in part through optimising how results are reported. The integration of the clinical picture into the interpretation section of the laboratory reports may further help to improve the management of NSCLC. We hope that the recommendations and considerations described in this manuscript, based on practical experience of NGS reporting in NSCLC, will facilitate further standardisation of NGS reporting in NSCLC to ultimately ensure that reports are fully interpretable and the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports.
References
Yang S-R, Schultheis AM, Yu H, Mandelker D, Ladanyi M, Büttner R. Precision medicine in non-small cell lung cancer: Current applications and future directions. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;84:184–98.
Thai AA, Solomon BJ, Sequist LV, Gainor JF, Heist RS. Lung cancer. Lancet. 2021;398:535–54.
Hanna NH, Robinson AG, Temin S, Baker S, Brahmer JR, Ellis PM, et al. Therapy for stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer with driver alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) joint guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1040–91. [Erratum: J Clin Oncol 2021;39(22):2520].
Singh N, Temin S, Baker S, Blanchard E, Brahmer JR, Celano P, et al. Therapy for Stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations: ASCO Living Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3323–43.
Roth M, Michelotti A, De Scordilli M, Bertoli E, De Carlo E, Del Conte A, et al. NSCLC as the paradigm of precision medicine at its finest: the rise of new druggable molecular targets for advanced disease. Int J Mol. 2022;23:6748.
Hendriks LE, Kerr K, Menis J, Mok TS, Nestle U, Passaro A, et al. Oncogene-addicted metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2023;S0923–7534:04785–8.
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Non-small cell lung cancer V3.2024. Accessed March 25, 2024.
Pennell NA, Arcila ME, Gandara DR, West H. Biomarker testing for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer: real-world issues and tough choices. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book 2019;531-42.
Kalemkerian GP, Narula N, Kennedy EB, Biermann WA, Donington J, Leighl NB, et al. Molecular testing guideline for the selection of patients with lung cancer for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: American society of clinical oncology endorsement of the college of American pathologists/ international association for the study of lung cancer/ association for molecular pathology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:911–9.
Mosele F, Remon J, Mateo J, Westphalen CB, Barlesi F, Lolkema MP, et al. Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1491–505.
Pennell NA, Mutebi A, Zhou Z-Y, Ricculli ML, Tang W, Wang H, et al. Economic impact of next-generation sequencing versus single-gene testing to detect genomic alterations in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer using a decision analytic model. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1–9.
Rolfo C, Mack P, Scagliotti GV, Aggarwal C, Arcila ME, Barlesi F, et al. Liquid biopsy for advanced NSCLC: A Consensus Statement From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:1647–62.
Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, Kulkarni S, Lindeman NI, Roy S, et al. Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19:4.
Kerr KM, Bibeau F, Thunnissen E, Botling J, Ryška A, Wolf J, et al. The evolving landscape of biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer in Europe. Lung Cancer. 2021;154:161–75.
Tack V, Dufraing K, Deans ZC, van Krieken HJ, Dequeker EMC. The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting. Virchows Arch. 2017;471:199–207.
Dorschner MO, Amendola LM, Shirts BH, Kiedrowski L, Salama J, Gordon AS, et al. Refining the structure and content of clinical genomic reports. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;0:85.
Matthijs G, Souche E, Alders M, Corveleyn A, Eck S, Feenstra I, et al. Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;24:2–5.
Smith K, Martindale J, Wallis Y, Bown N, Leo N, Creswell L, et al. General Genetic Laboratory Reporting Recommendations. 2015. https://www.acgs.uk.com/media/10758/acgs_general_genetic_laboratory_reporting_recommendations_2015.pdf.
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–24.
Cree IA, Cree IA, Deans Z, Ligtenberg MJL, Groenen P, Van Krieken JH, et al. Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:923–31.
Penault-Llorca F, Kerr KM, Garrido P, Thunnissen E, Dequeker E, Normanno N, et al. Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing — Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment. Virchows Arch. 2022;481:351.
de Moor JS, Gray SW, Mitchell SA, Klabunde CN, Freedman AN. Oncologist confidence in genomic testing and implications for using multimarker tumor panel tests in practice. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:620–31.
Liu F, Wei Y, Zhang H, Jiang J, Zhang P, Chu Q. NTRK fusion in non-small cell lung cancer: diagnosis, therapy, and TRK inhibitor resistance. Front Oncol. 2022;12:864666.
Harada G, Santini FC, Wilhelm C, Drilon A. NTRK fusions in lung cancer: From biology to therapy. Lung Cancer. 2021;161:108–13.
de Jager VD, Timens W, Bayle A, Botling J, Brcic L, Büttner R, et al. Future perspective for the application of predictive biomarker testing in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024;38:100839.
Cainap C, Balacescu O, Cainap SS, Pop LA. Next generation sequencing technology in lung cancer diagnosis. Biology 2021;10:864.
Malapelle U, Fassan M, de Biase D. Special issue: next-generation sequencing in tumor diagnosis and treatment II. Diagnostics 2022;12:2017.
König D, Prince SS, Rothschild SI. Targeted therapy in advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. An update on treatment of the most important actionable oncogenic driver alterations. Cancers. 2021;13:804.
Malapelle U, Pisapia P, Pepe F, Russo G, Buono M, Russo A, et al. The evolving role of liquid biopsy in lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2022;172:53–64.
Bonanno L, Dal Maso A, Pavan A, Zulato E, Calvetti L, Pasello G, et al. Liquid biopsy and non-small cell lung cancer: are we looking at the tip of the iceberg? Br J Cancer. 2022;127:383–93.
Lin C, Liu X, Zheng B, Ke R, Tzeng CM. Liquid biopsy, ctDNA diagnosis through NGS. Life 2021;11:890.
Paul H. Next-generation sequencing with liquid biopsies from treatment-naïve non-small cell lung carcinoma patients. Cancers. 2021;13:2049.
Lazzari C, Bulotta A, Cangi MG, Bucci G, Pecciarini L, Bonfiglio S, et al. Next generation sequencing in non-small cell lung cancer: pitfalls and opportunities. Diagnostics. 2020;10:1092.
Mino-Kenudson M. Cons: Can liquid biopsy replace tissue biopsy?—the US experience. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016;5:424–7.
Sebastião MM, Ho RS, de Carvalho JPV, Nussbaum M. Diagnostic accuracy of next generation sequencing panel using circulating tumor DNA in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2020;7:158–63.
Chan HT, Chin YM, Nakamura Y, Low S-K. Clonal hematopoiesis in liquid biopsy: from biological noise to valuable clinical implications. Cancers. 2020;12:2277.
Xie J, Yao W, Chen L, Zhu W, Liu Q, Geng G, et al. Plasma ctDNA increases tissue NGS-based detection of therapeutically targetable mutations in lung cancers. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:294.
Smeltzer MP, Wynes MW, Lantuejoul S, Soo R, Ramalingam SS, Varella-Garcia M, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Global Survey on molecular testing in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15:1434–48.
De Maglio G, Pasello G, Dono M, Fiorentino M, Follador A, Sciortino M, et al. The storm of NGS in NSCLC diagnostic-therapeutic pathway: How to sun the real clinical practice. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;169:103561.
Sadik H, Pritchard D, Keeling D-M, Policht F, Riccelli P, Stone G, et al. Impact of clinical practice gaps on the implementation of personalized medicine in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2022;e2200246.
Horgan D, Curigliano G, Rieß O, Hofman P, Büttner R, Conte P, et al. Identifying the steps required to effectively implement next-generation sequencing in oncology at a national level in Europe. J Pers Med. 2022;12:72.
Dancey JE, Bedard PL, Onetto N, Hudson TJ. Leading edge the genetic basis for cancer treatment decisions. Cell. 2012;148:409–20.
Gregg JP, Li T, Yoneda KY. Molecular testing strategies in non-small cell lung cancer: Optimizing the diagnostic journey. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019;8:286–301.
Lubin IM, Aziz N, Babb LJ, Ballinger D, Bisht H, Church DM, et al. Principles and recommendations for standardizing the use of the next-generation sequencing variant file in clinical settings. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19:417–26.
Shu Y, Wu X, Tong X, Wang X, Chang Z, Mao Y, et al. Circulating tumor DNA mutation profiling by targeted next generation sequencing provides guidance for personalized treatments in multiple cancer types. Sci Rep. 2017;7:583.
Ilié M, Hofman V, Bontoux C, Heeke S, Lespinet-Fabre V, Bordone O, et al. Setting up an ultra-fast next-generation sequencing approach as reflex testing at diagnosis of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer; experience of a single center (LPCE, Nice, France). Cancers 2022;14:2258.
Malone ER, Oliva M, Sabatini PJB, Stockley TL, Siu LL Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med. 2020;12:8.
Marshall CR, Chowdhury S, Taft RJ, Lebo MS, Buchan JG, Harrison SM, et al. Best practices for the analytical validation of clinical whole-genome sequencing intended for the diagnosis of germline disease. NPJ Genom Med. 2020;5:47.
Endrullat C, Glökler J, Franke P, Frohme M. Standardization and quality management in next-generation sequencing. Appl Transl Genom. 2016;10:2–9.
Passaro A, Leighl N, Blackhall F, Popat S, Kerr K, Ahn MJ, et al. ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:466–87.
Deans ZC, Costa JL, Cree I, Dequeker E, Edsjö A, Henderson S, et al. Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL. Virchows Arch. 2017;470:5–20.
Mateo J, Chakravarty D, Dienstmann R, Jezdic S, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N, et al. A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: The ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1895–902.
Schmid S, Jochum W, Padberg B, Demmer I, Mertz KD, Joerger M, et al. How to read a next-generation sequencing report – 2014; what oncologists need to know. ESMO Open. 2022;7:100570.
Sequence Variant Nomenclature. https://varnomen.hgvs.org/bg-material/simple/ (accessed 16 Dec 2022).
Callenberg KM, Santana-Santos L, Chen L, Ernst WL, De Moura MB, Nikiforov YE, et al. Clinical implementation and validation of automated Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature system for next-generation sequencing-based assays for cancer. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20:628–34.
Li MM, Chao E, Esplin ED, Miller DT, Nathanson KL, Plon SE, et al. Points to consider for reporting of germline variation in patients undergoing tumor testing: a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22:1142–8.
Penault-Llorca F, Kerr KM, Garrido P, Thunnissen E, Dequeker E, Normanno N, et al. Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 1: Tissue collection and management. Virchows Arch. 2022;481:335–50.
Solomon JP, Benayed R, Hechtman JF, Ladanyi M. Identifying patients with NTRK fusion cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:viii16.
Husain H, Pavlick DC, Fendler BJ, Madison RW, Decker B, Gjoerup O, et al. Tumor fraction correlates with detection of actionable variants across > 23,000 circulating tumor DNA samples. JCO Precis Oncol. 2022;6:e2200261.
Yaung SJ, Fuhlbrück F, Peterson M, Zou W, Palma JF, Patil NS, et al. Clonal Hematopoiesis in late-stage non-small-cell lung cancer and its impact on targeted panel next-generation sequencing. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:1271–9.
Hong Y, Kim WJ. DNA methylation markers in lung cancer. Curr Genom. 2021;22:79–87.
Ntzifa A, Londra D, Rampias T, Kotsakis A, Georgoulias V, Lianidou E. DNA methylation analysis in plasma cell-free DNA and paired CTCs of NSCLC patients before and after osimertinib treatment. Cancers. 2021;13:5974.
Jiang P, Sinha S, Aldape K, Hannenhalli S, Sahinalp C, Ruppin E. Big data in basic and translational cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022;22:625–39.
Ladbury C, Amini A, Govindarajan A, Mambetsariev I, Raz DJ, Massarelli E, et al. Integration of artificial intelligence in lung cancer: Rise of the machine. Cell Rep. Med. 2023;4:100933.
Couture HD. Deep learning-based prediction of molecular tumor biomarkers from H&E: A practical review. J Pers Med. 2022;12:2022.
Rolfo CD, Madison R, Pasquina LW, Brown DW, Huang Y, Hughes JD, et al. Utility of ctDNA tumor fraction to inform negative liquid biopsy (LBx) results and need for tissue reflex in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:9076.
Perry C, Greenberg O, Haberman S, Herskovitz N, Gazy I, Avinoam A, et al. Image-based deep learning detection of high-grade B-cell lymphomas directly from hematoxylin and eosin images. Cancers. 2023;15:5205.
Frisone D, Friedlaender A, Addeo A. The role and impact of minimal residual disease in NSCLC. Curr Oncol Rep. 2021;23:136.
De Leng WWJ, Gadellaa-Van Hooijdonk CG, Barendregt-Smouter FAS, Koudijs MJ, Nijman I, Hinrichs JWJ, et al. Targeted next generation sequencing as a reliable diagnostic assay for the detection of somatic mutations in tumours using minimal DNA amounts from formalin fixed paraffin embedded material. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149405.
Acknowledgements
Medical writing assistance was provided by Carys Davies, PhD, of Syneos Health, UK, and funded by Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945) and EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755).
Funding
Supported by Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755), and EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755): selected experts, organised meetings to define recommendations, and funded medical writing support for development of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conception or design of the work: Umberto Malapelle, Christian Rolfo, Filippo Venturini, Richard O’Hara. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: N/A. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Administrative, technical, or material support: N/A. Final approval of the version to be submitted: All authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Umberto Malapelle: Personal fees (consultant and/or speaker bureau): Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis, and Hedera. Alfredo Addeo: Consulting or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astellas, Takeda, and Amgen; speaker’s bureau: Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Florian Länger: Consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, MSD, speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, and Takeda. Egbert F. Smit: Advisory/consultancy (institution): Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Bayer, Regeneron, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics; research funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Ola Khorshid: Advisory & speaker for: MSD, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hikma, and Novartis. Dov Hershkovitz: Advisor, honoraria, and research funding (institution): Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Novartis, Biond Biologics, and ImageneAI. Maximilian J. Hochmair: Personal fees and nonfinancial support: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Roche; personal fees: MSD, Lilly, and BMS. Natasha Leighl: Institutional research funding: Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Guardant Health, Inivata, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; honoraria (independent CME lectures): Amgen, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi Genzyme, and Takeda. Filippo de Marinis: Personal advisory fees: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd., and MSD. Nir Peled: Advisor, honoraria, and research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Merck Serono Ltd., Herzliya, Israel, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, NovellusDx, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Brandon S. Sheffield: Advisory board meetings: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Thermo Fisher; grant support: AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Thermo Fisher; research funding: AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and ThermoFisher. Santiago Viteri: Consulting or advisory role: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, MSD; speaker’s bureau fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca; travel expenses: Roche, OSE Pharma, BMS, MSD, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, and Janssen Cilag. Jürgen Wolf: Consulting or advisory role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; research funding (institution): Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; travel, accommodations, expenses: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda. Filippo Venturini: Employee of Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Richard O’Hara: Employee of EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Christian Rolfo: speaker honoraria: AstraZeneca, Roche and MSD; advisory board honoraria: Inivata, Archer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Novartis, Bayer, Invitae, Regeneron, Janssen, Bostongene, Novocure; scientific advisory board member: Imagene; institutional research funding: LCRF- Pfizer and NCRF; non-renumerated research support: Guardant Health and Foundation Medicine; non-renumerated leadership roles: the International Society of Liquid Biopsy (ISLB), the International Association for Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the European School of Oncology (ESO).
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Malapelle, U., Leighl, N., Addeo, A. et al. Recommendations for reporting tissue and circulating tumour (ct)DNA next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 131, 212–219 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02709-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02709-4
- Springer Nature Limited