Next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods show superior or equivalent performance to non-NGS methods on BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS proficiency testing samples

Context.-There has been a rapid expansion of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays for the detection of somatic variants in solid tumors. However, limited data are available regarding the comparative performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using standardized samples across a large number of laboratories. Objective.-To compare the performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using well-characterized proficiency testing samples provided by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Molecular Oncology Committee. A secondary goal was to compare the use of preanalytic and postanalytic practices. Design.-A total of 17 343 responses were obtained from participants in the BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, and the Multigene Tumor Panel surveys across 84 different proficiency testing samples interrogating 16 variants and 3 wild-type sequences. Performance and preanalytic/ postanalytic practices were analyzed by method. Results.-While both NGS and non-NGS achieved an acceptable response rate of greater than 95%, the overall performance of NGS methods was significantly better than that of non-NGS methods for the identification of variants in BRAF (overall 97.8% versus 95.6% acceptable responses, P ¼ .001) and EGFR (overall 98.5% versus 97.3%, P ¼ .01) and was similar for KRAS (overall 98.8% and 97.6%, P ¼ .10). There were specific variant differences, but in all discrepant cases, NGS methods outperformed non-NGS methods. NGS laboratories also more consistently used preanalytic and postanalytic practices suggested by the CAP checklist requirements than non-NGS laboratories. Conclusions.-The overall analytic performance of both methods was excellent. For specific BRAF and EGFR variants, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods and NGS laboratories report superior adherence to suggested laboratory practices.