Search

* Context.--Next-generation sequencing-based approaches using RNA have increasingly been used by clinical laboratories for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events. Correspondingly, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has advanced RNA sequencing proficiency testing (PT) to ensure optimal performance of these assays. Objective.--To report on laboratory performance and practices of RNA sequencing for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events using CAP PT data from 8 mailings (2018-A through 2021-B). Design.--CAP PT RNA sequencing program results from 153 laboratories across 24 proficiency test specimens, interrogating 22 distinct engineered fusion transcripts, were analyzed for correct identification of the fusion event, associated performance variables, and laboratory practices. Results.--Overall, the 4-year program detection rate (sensitivity) was 95.5% (1486 of 1556 results). False-negative rates were 3.6% (53 of 1463) and 18.3% (17 of 93) for fusion gene and intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events, respectively. Only 19 false-positive results were reported among the 8 PT mailings, and most were likely the result of preanalytical or postanalytical errors. There were no practice characteristics (eg, instrumentation, sequencing method) significantly associated with the fusion detection results. Conclusions.--These data reveal a high overall sensitivity and specificity for fusion gene detection by participating laboratories using clinical RNA sequencing. Performance was comparable across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. The fraction of false-negative results for intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events was greater than that for the chimeric fusion genes. False-negative results could not be attributed to any specific practice characteristics., Fusion oncogenes represent valuable biomarkers that aid in diagnostic classification and prognostication, as well as serving as therapeutic targets. (1-4) Examples of structural alterations/mutations that may lead to chimeric fusions [...]

Context.--Therapy targeted at human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2) was used initially for breast and gastroesophageal carcinoma and has more recently been adopted for endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). There is evidence that predictive biomarker testing algorithms for HER2 must be tumor type specific and that an algorithm validated for one tumor type cannot be applied to another. Objective.--To describe current laboratory practices for HER2 assessment in ESC and CRC. Design.--We surveyed laboratories participating in the 2021 College of American Pathologists (CAP) HER2 immunohistochemistry proficiency testing program. Results.--The survey was distributed to 1548 laboratories and returned by 1195, of which 83.5% (998) were in the United States. For ESC, 24.0% (287) of laboratories reported performing in-house testing for HER2 by immunohistochemical staining and/or in situ hybridization; of these, 44.3% (127) performed it reflexively on all cases of ESC. The most common criterion for evaluating HER2 was the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma (69.0%; 194 of 281), whereas only 16.0% (45) of laboratories used guidelines specific to ESC. For CRC, 20.2% (239 of 1185) of laboratories performed in-house HER2 testing, and 82.0% of these (196) did the test only at the clinician's request. A plurality (49.4%; 115 of 233) used gastroesophageal cancer guidelines when scoring CRC, 30.0% (70) used the CRC scoring system from the HERACLES trial, and 16.3% (38) used the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma. Conclusions.--Laboratories vary in their approach to HER2 testing in ESC and CRC. Most laboratories did not report using tumor type-specific recommendations for HER2 interpretation. The lack of standardization could present a challenge to evidence-based practice when considering targeted therapy for these diseases. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2022-0229-CP, As targeted therapy has become available for an increasing number of tumor types, it has become important to assess predictive biomarkers in the pathology laboratory. For example, the monoclonal antibody [...]

Context.—The diagnosis and clinical management of patients with diffuse gliomas (DGs) have evolved rapidly over the past decade with the emergence of molecular biomarkers that are used to classify, stratify risk, and predict treatment response for optimal clinical care.Objective.—To develop evidence-based recommendations for informing molecular biomarker testing for pediatric and adult patients with DGs and provide guidance for appropriate laboratory test and biomarker selection for optimal diagnosis, risk stratification, and prediction.Design.—The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop recommendations. A systematic review of literature was conducted to address the overarching question, "What ancillary tests are needed to classify DGs and sufficiently inform the clinical management of patients?" Recommendations were derived from quality of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus.Results.—Thirteen recommendations and 3 good practice statements were established to guide pathologists and treating physicians on the most appropriate methods and molecular biomarkers to include in laboratory testing to inform clinical management of patients with DGs.Conclusions.—Evidence-based incorporation of laboratory results from molecular biomarker testing into integrated diagnoses of DGs provides reproducible and clinically meaningful information for patient management.

* Context.--Integration of molecular data into glioma classification supports diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic decision-making; however, testing practices for these informative biomarkers in clinical laboratories remain unclear. Objective.--To examine the prevalence of molecular testing for clinically relevant biomarkers in adult and pediatric gliomas through review of a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey prior to the release of the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. Design.--College of American Pathologists proficiency testing 2020 survey results from 96 laboratories performing molecular testing for diffuse gliomas were used to determine the use of testing for molecular biomarkers in gliomas. Results.--The data provide perspective into the testing practices for diffuse gliomas from a broad group of clinical laboratories in 2020. More than 98% of participating laboratories perform testing for glioma biomarkers recognized as diagnostic for specific subtypes, including IDH. More than 60% of laboratories also use molecular markers to differentiate between astrocytic and oligodendroglial lineage tumors, with some laboratories providing more comprehensive analyses, including prognostic biomarkers, such as CDKN2A/B homozygous deletions. Almost all laboratories test for MGMT promoter methylation to identify patients with an increased likelihood of responding to temozolomide. Conclusions.--These findings highlight the state of molecular testing in 2020 for the diagnosis and classification of diffuse gliomas at large academic medical centers. The findings show that comprehensive molecular testing is not universal across clinical laboratories and highlight the gaps between laboratory practices in 2020 and the recommendations in the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2021-0431-CP, Historically, the classification of diffuse gliomas was based in large part on histologic features, including tumor cell morphology, mitotic index, and the presence of necrosis and/or microvascular proliferation. To delineate [...]

Context.--As laboratories increasingly turn from single-analyte testing in hematologic malignancies to next-generation sequencing-based panel testing, there is a corresponding need for proficiency testing to ensure adequate performance of these next-generation sequencing assays for optimal patient care. Objective.--To report the performance of laboratories on proficiency testing from the first 4 College of American Pathologists Next-Generation Sequencing Hematologic Malignancy surveys. Design.--College of American Pathologists proficiency testing results for 36 different engineered variants and/or allele fractions as well as a sample with no pathogenic variants were analyzed for accuracy and associated assay performance characteristics. Results.--The overall sensitivity observed for all variants was 93.5% (2190 of 2341) with 99.8% specificity (22 800 of 22 840). The false-negative rate was 6.5% (151 of 2341), and the largest single cause of these errors was difficulty in identifying variants in the sequence of CEBPA that is rich in cytosines and guanines. False-positive results (0.18%; 40 of 22 840) were most likely the result of preanalytic or postanalytic errors. Interestingly, the variant allele fractions were almost uniformly lower than the engineered fraction (as measured by digital polymerase chain reaction). Extensive troubleshooting identified a multifactorial cause for the low variant allele fractions, a result of an interaction between the linearized nature of the plasmid and the Illumina TruSeq chemistry. Conclusions.--Laboratories demonstrated an overall accuracy of 99.2% (24 990 of 25 181) with 99.8% specificity and 93.5% sensitivity when examining 36 clinically relevant somatic single-nucleotide variants with a variant allele fraction of 10% or greater. The data also highlight an issue with artificial linearized plasmids as survey material for next-generation sequencing. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0352-CP, The number of clinical laboratories using next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods for the assessment of somatic variants has been growing rapidly. (1,2) This explosion has been driven by the increasing numbers [...]

Context.--Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) in squamous cell carcinoma is important for classification and prognostication. In situ hybridization (ISH) is a commonly used HR-HPV-specific test that targets viral RNA or DNA. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) provides proficiency testing for laboratories performing HR-HPV iSh. Objective.--To compare the analytical performance of RNA- and DNA-based ISH methods on CAP HR-HPV proficiency tests. Design.--Data from the 2016-2018 CAP HPV ISH proficiency testing surveys were reviewed. These surveys consist of well-characterized samples with known status for HR-HPV, including 1 to 2 copies, 50 to 100 copies, 300 to 500 copies, and no copies of HR-HPV per cell. Results.--Ninety-five participants submitted 1268 survey results from 20 cores. Overall, RNA ISH had a significantly higher percentage of correct responses than DNA ISH: 97.4% (450 of 462) versus 80.6% (650 of 806) (P < .001). This disparity appears to be the consequence of a superior sensitivity of rNa ISH compared to DNA ISH for samples with 1 to 2 and with 50 to 100 copies of HRHPV per cell: 95.2% (120 of 126) versus 53.8% (129 of 240), P < .001, respectively, and 100% (89 of 89) versus 76.3% (119 of 156), P < .001, respectively. Conclusions.--An assessment of CAP HR-HPV proficiency test performance indicates that RNA ISH shows significantly higher accuracy than DNA ISH owing to higher analytical sensitivity of RNA ISH in tumors with low (1-2 copies per cell) to intermediate (50-100 copies per cell) HR-HPV viral copy numbers. These data support the use of RNA over DNA ISH in clinical laboratories that perform HR-HPV testing as part of their testing algorithms. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:344-349; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0093-CP), High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) causes HPV-positive squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) at multiple anatomic sites including the oropharynx, anus, and urogenital tracts. The detection of HR-HPV in tissue samples containing SCC [...]

* Context.--The performance of laboratory testing has recently come under increased scrutiny as part of important and ongoing debates on regulation and reimbursement. To address this critical issue, this study compares the performance of assay methods, using either commercial kits or assays designed and implemented by single laboratories ('home brews'), including next-generation sequencing methods, on proficiency testing provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. Objective.--To compare the performance of different assay methods on College of American Pathologists proficiency testing for variant analysis of 3 common oncology analytes: BRAF, EGFR, and KrAS. Design.--There were 6897 total responses across 35 different proficiency testing samples interrogating 13 different variants as well as wild-type sequences for BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. Performance was analyzed by test method, kit manufacturer, variants tested, and preanalytic and postanalytic practices. Results.--Of 26 reported commercial kits, 23 achieved greater than 95% accuracy. Laboratory-developed tests with no kit specified demonstrated 96.8% or greater accuracy across all 3 analytes (1123 [96.8%] acceptable of 1160 total responses for BrAF; 848 [97.5%] acceptable of 870 total responses for EGFR; 942 [97.0%] acceptable of 971 total responses for KRAS). Next-generation sequencing platforms (summed across all analytes and 2 platforms) demonstrated 99.4% accuracy for these analytes (165 [99.4%] acceptable of 166 total next-generation sequencing responses). Slight differences in performance were noted among select commercial assays, dependent upon the particular design and specificity of the assay. Wide differences were noted in the lower limits of neoplastic cellularity laboratories accepted for testing. Conclusions.--These data demonstrate the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. However, care must be taken in understanding the diagnostic specificity and reported analytic sensitivity of individual methods. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143:1203-1211; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0396-CP), The performance of laboratory testing has recently come under increased scrutiny, with ongoing debates on the role of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the regulation of laboratory-developed [...]

Context.--Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.--To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.--Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.--The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported 'unable to analyze' more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.--Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0457-CP, Amplification or overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, HER2) gene is an important oncogenic driver in up to 20% to 25% of breast cancers. Breast cancers [...]

Context.--Detection of acquired variants in cancer is a paradigm of precision medicine, yet little has been reported about clinical laboratory practices across a broad range of laboratories. Objective.--To use College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey results to report on the results from surveys on next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing practices. Design.--College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey results from more than 250 laboratories currently performing molecular oncology testing were used to determine laboratory trends in next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing. Results.--These presented data provide key information about the number of laboratories that currently offer or are planning to offer next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing. Furthermore, we present data from 60 laboratories performing next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing regarding specimen requirements and assay characteristics. The findings indicate that most laboratories are performing tumor-only targeted sequencing to detect single-nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions, using desktop sequencers and predesigned commercial kits. Despite these trends, a diversity of approaches to testing exists. Conclusions.--This information should be useful to further inform a variety of topics, including national discussions involving clinical laboratory quality systems, regulation and oversight of next-generation sequencing-based oncology testing, and precision oncology efforts in a data-driven manner. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1679-1685; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0542-CP), Clinical testing for somatic or acquired variants in cancer specimens is a common modality of precision, or personalized, medicine. Detection of somatic variants in cancer specimens can be used for [...]

The College of American Pathologists offers these templates to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of biomarker testing. The College regards the reporting elements [...]

Context.--The College of American Pathologists surveys are the largest laboratory peer comparison programs in the world. These programs allow laboratories to regularly evaluate their performance and improve the accuracy of the patient test results they provide. Proficiency testing is offered twice a year to laboratories performing microsatellite instability testing. These surveys are designed to emulate clinical practice, and some surveys have more challenging cases to encourage the refinement of laboratory practices. Objective.--This report summarizes the results and trends in microsatellite instability proficiency testing from participating laboratories from the inception of the program in 2005 through 2012. Design.--We compiled and analyzed data for 16 surveys of microsatellite instability proficiency testing during 2005 to 2012. Results.--The number of laboratories participating in the microsatellite instability survey has more than doubled from 42 to 104 during the 8 years analyzed. An average of 95.4% of the laboratories correctly classified each of the survey test samples from the 2005A through 2012B proficiency challenges. In the 2011B survey, a lower percentage of laboratories (78.4%) correctly classified the specimen, possibly because of overlooking subtle changes of microsatellite instability and/or failing to enrich the tumor content of the specimen to meet the limit of detection of their assay. Conclusions.--In general, laboratories performed well in microsatellite instability testing. This testing will continue to be important in screening patients with colorectal and other cancers for Lynch syndrome and guiding the management of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138:363-370; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0159-CP), Although most cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are sporadic, approximately 2% to 3% are due to the hereditary CRC syndrome known as hereditary nonpolyposis CRC (1) or Lynch syndrome (LS). [...]

* Context.--The fraction of malignant cells in tumor tissue submitted for tests of genetic alterations is a critical variable in testing accuracy. That fraction is currently determined by pathologist visual estimation of the percentage of malignant cells. Inaccuracy could lead to a false-negative test result. Objective.--To describe a prospective, multi-institutional study to determine pathologist estimation accuracy. Design.--Ten X20 magnification images of hematoxylin-eosin-stained colon tissue specimens were sent as an educational component of the College of American Pathologists KRAS-B 2011 Survey. Data from 194 labs were analyzed and compared to a criterion standard with comprehensive manual nuclear counts. Results.--Survey responses indicated low interlaboratory precision of pathologist estimation, but mean estimates were fairly accurate. A total of 5 of the 10 cases assessed showed more than 10% of respondents overestimating in a manner that could lead to false-negative test results. Conclusions.--The significance of estimation errors resulting in molecular testing failures with implications for patient care is unknown, but the current study suggests false-negative test results may occur. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1545-1549; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0561-CP), Successful molecular oncology testing depends on accurate assessment of the percentage of malignant cells in the analyzed tissue specimen. Although sensitivity is highly variable, depending on the individual technical approach, [...]

Context.--Soft tissue pathology encompasses a remarkably diverse assortment of benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. Rendering a definitive diagnosis is complicated not only by the large volume of existing histologic subtypes (>100) but also frequently by the presence of overlapping clinical, histologic, immunohistochemical, and/or radiographic features. During the past 3 decades, mesenchymal tumor-specific, cytogenetic and molecular genetic abnormalities have demonstrated an increasingly important, ancillary role in mesenchymal tumor diagnostics. Objectives.--To review molecular diagnostic tools available to the pathologist to further classify specific soft tissue tumor types and recurrent aberrations frequently examined. Advantages and limitations of individual approaches will also be highlighted. Data Sources.--Previously published review articles, peer-reviewed research publications, and the extensive cytogenetic and molecular diagnostic experience of the authors to include case files of The University of Nebraska Medical Center. Conclusions.--Cytogenetic and molecular genetic assays are used routinely for diagnostic purposes in soft tissue pathology and represent a powerful adjunct to complement conventional microscopy and clinicoradiographic evaluation in the formulation of an accurate diagnosis. Care should be taken, however, to recognize the limitations of these approaches. Ideally, more than one technical approach should be available to a diagnostic laboratory to compensate for the shortcomings of each approach in the assessment of individual specimens. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:588-601), Soft tissue tumors constitute a rare, heterogeneous group of mesenchymal neoplasms that during the past 3 decades have been shown by cytogenetic analysis to have a remarkably high incidence of [...]

* Context.--Renal epithelial neoplasms have characteristic chromosomal imbalances, and we have shown previously that virtual karyotypes derived from single-nucleotide polymorphism microarrays can be performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Objective.--To perform a direct comparison of virtual and conventional karyotypes to evaluate concordance of results. Design.--Twenty archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples with preexisting, conventional cytogenetic results were analyzed with Affymetrix 10K 2.0 or 250K Nsp single-nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. Results.--Nineteen samples yielded adequate virtual karyotypes for interpretation. Eight samples showed complete agreement between the 2 techniques, and 8 samples showed partial agreement. The disease-defining lesions (eg, loss of 3p for clear cell carcinoma) were identified in all 19 cases by virtual karyotypes and in 15 cases by conventional karyotypes. Virtual and conventional karyotypic findings were concordant in the identification of these disease-defining lesions in 86% (13 of 15) of cases. In 3 cases, virtual karyotypes identified lesions consistent with the morphologic diagnosis, whereas the conventional karyotypes were unsuccessful because of insufficient tumor representation or stromal overgrowth. Two cases with acquired uniparental disomy were identified by single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and 5 cases with translocations were identified by conventional karyotype. Conclusions.--Our results show that both techniques are able to identify the characteristic chromosomal abnormality for renal tumor subtypes in most cases. Discrepancies can be explained by inherent limitations of each technique, inadequate tumor sampling, and tumor heterogeneity. We conclude that virtual karyotyping is a robust alternative to conventional cytogenetics for the evaluation of chromosomal anomalies in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues from renal epithelial neoplasms., Renal epithelial neoplasms have characteristic chromosomal gains and losses, such as loss of 3p in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and trisomy 7 and/or 17 in papillary RCC. (1,2) [...]