Figure 3
From: Multinational proficiency tests for EGFR exon 20 insertions reveal that the assay design matters
Overview of proficiency test outcomes depending on methods used for EGFR exon20ins testing. Successful participation in the proficiency tests did not depend on the kit used to extract (cf)DNA, but on the method subsequently used to detect EGFR exon20ins. Overall, institutes utilizing NGS and Sanger sequencing had higher success rates than institutes employing mutation-/allele-specific (q)PCR. Panel (A) shows the results of the tissue part of the DACH proficiency test. All participants using NGS, pyro- or Sanger sequencing as method of choice passed, whereas only 2 of the 7 institutes using mutation-/allele-specific (q)PCR did. Panel (B) displays the outcomes of the liquid biopsy part of the DACH proficiency test. None of the participating institutes using mutation-/allele-specific (q)PCR passed, while 84% of the institutes utilizing NGS participated successfully. Panel (C) shows the results of the tissue part of the international proficiency test: 89.8% of the participating institutes employing NGS or Sanger sequencing as their method of choice passed the quality control test, whereas only 2 of the 18 institutes (11.1%) using mutation-/allele-specific (q)PCR did. Panel (D) displays the outcomes of the liquid biopsy part of the international proficiency test. None of the participating institutes utilizing mutation-/allele-specific (q)PCR or pyrosequencing passed, while 81.5% of the institutes using NGS participated successfully. Details on suppliers can be found in the Supplement.
