{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04122137404580153, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018829516539440202, 'mean_word_length': 5.067901234567901, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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 = .001) and EGFR (overall 98.5% versus 97.3%, P = .01) and was similar for KRAS (overall 98.8% and 97.6%, P = .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.