背景:对于非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者,靶向治疗正在成为标准治疗的一部分。临床医生提供哪些关于测试请求的信息以及实验室如何使测试结论适应这些知识和法规是有问题的。
方法:本研究由两部分组成:1)检查比利时实验室中已完成的请求和相应报告中是否存在预定义元素(治疗选择的管理和关键),在全国病理学/肿瘤学会议期间,比利时病理学家/分子生物学家和临床医生进行组织和液体活检(LB)测试以及b)意见分析。
结果:分析了6个比利时实验室中有4个通过ISO认证进行LB测试的数据,其中75%是大学医院。在评分请求(N=4)上,组织存在19种ISO要求的元素中的12种,LB测试存在11种。特别是相关的病史,例如治疗线(对于LB),缺乏肿瘤组织学和测试原因。同样,18个元素中的11个和9个存在于组织和LB的报告(N=4)中,分别。病理学家/分子生物学家(N=18)在请求中缺失的元素是最初的激活突变,以前的疗法,临床问题和测试相关信息。对于报告,两组都认为重要的一个项目是测试结果的临床解释。此外,临床医生(N=28)指出,他们也希望读取肿瘤细胞的百分比。
结论:实验室和临床医生之间的交流,确定了可能的陷阱。根据研究结果,提出了完整请求和报告的模板。
BACKGROUND: For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), targeted therapies are becoming part of the standard treatment. It is of question which information the clinicians provide on test requests and how the laboratories adapt test conclusions to this knowledge and regulations.
METHODS: This study consisted of two components; 1) checking the presence of pre-defined elements (administrative and key for therapy-choice) on completed requests and corresponding
reports in Belgian laboratories, both for tissue- and liquid biopsy (LB)-testing and b) opinion analysis from Belgian pathologists/molecular biologists and clinicians during national pathology/oncology meetings.
RESULTS: Data from 4 out of 6 Belgian laboratories with ISO-accreditation for LB-testing were analyzed, of which 75% were university hospitals. On the scored requests (N = 4), 12 out of 19 ISO-required elements were present for tissue and 11 for LB-testing. Especially relevant patient history, such as line of therapy (for LB), tumor histology and the reason for testing were lacking. Similarly, 11 and 9 out of 18 elements were present in the
reports (N = 4) for tissue and LB, respectively. Elements that pathologists/molecular biologists (N = 18) were missing on the request were the initial activating mutation, previous therapies, a clinical question and testing-related information. For reporting, an item considered important by both groups is the clinical interpretation of the test result. In addition, clinicians (N = 28) indicated that they also wish to read the percentage of neoplastic cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Communication flows between the laboratory and the clinician, together with possible pitfalls were identified. Based on the study results, templates for complete requesting and reporting were proposed.