Halley, Jaimie

Context.— Genomic reports are primarily organized in a narrative and unstructured format with variations in content and format. Regulatory requirements and professional guidelines for genetic test reporting exist but provide little guidance for effective communication of information. Objective.— To assess clinical genomic reporting practices across 5 disciplines within molecular diagnostics, including germline, somatic solid tumors, somatic hematologic malignancies, pharmacogenomics, and prenatal cell-free DNA screening. Design.— Reporting practices were assessed by using a structured review of clinical genomic reports from multiple laboratories in 5 molecular disciplines spanning different practice settings. Report content was reviewed by the presence/absence of from 27 to 44 elements, including 23 elements required by the College of American Pathologists and/or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). If present, the element’s location on the report was recorded. Results.— A total of 69 genomics reports from 31 laboratories were reviewed. Overall, the reports were compliant with regulatory requirements but showed variability in both format and content. Six of 7 required reporting elements (per CLIA, 42 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 493.1291) were included in 90% of the reports. However, these elements were often located in different report sections. Only patient demographics were always found in a specific report section (header). Conclusions.— These results show that reports are overall compliant with regulatory requirements, despite some reporting elements being less consistently reported. The lack of consistent presentation of the data elements presents an opportunity to improve the communication of molecular testing results to clinicians and patients.

Context.— Title 45, section 164.524 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that health care systems must provide patient health records upon that patient’s request. For complex testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), this raises questions related to what data should be released and the laboratory considerations regarding the release of this data. Objective.— To describe the laboratory implications of releasing different NGS data files and the limitations for the clinical use of different NGS data files. Design.— The College of American Pathologists workgroup, composed of laboratorians with expertise regarding NGS testing, reviewed pertinent literature, including title 45, section 164.524, and the Health and Human Services “Guidance on Individuals’ Right to Access Health Information.” Results.— From an accreditation standpoint, validation of NGS includes both the wet bench and data processing (bioinformatics) portions, and appropriately validated laboratory testing is required to ensure quality patient results. NGS testing generates intermediate data files that have not completed the fully validated process but are often kept by the laboratory. These files may be requested by patients, but most patients will not be aware of the test validation process and the limitations of data that have not gone through a fully validated process. Conclusions.— Laboratories should encourage patients to receive their health data and to help individuals understand the content, uses, and limitations of laboratory data they have requested or received. NGS data used in a nonvalidated manner should not be used for clinical purposes without confirmation by a clinically validated method.

Context.— Next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based assays are used for diagnosis of diverse inherited disorders. Limited data are available pertaining to interlaboratory analytical performance of these assays. Objective.— To report on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) NGS Germline Program, which is methods based, and explore the evolution in laboratory testing practices. Design.— Results from the NGS Germline Program from 2016–2020 were analyzed for interlaboratory analytical performance. Self-reported laboratory testing practices were also evaluated. Results.— From 2016–2020, a total of 297 laboratories participated in at least 1 program mailing. Of the 289 laboratories that provided information on tests offered, 138 (47.8%) offered only panel testing throughout their enrollment, while 35 (12.1%) offered panels and exome testing, 30 (10.4%) offered only exomes, 9 (3.1%) offered only genomes, and 15 (5.2%) offered panels, exomes, and genomes. The remainder (62 laboratories, 21.4%) changed their test offerings during the 2016–2020 timeframe. Considering each genomic position/interval, the median detection percentage at variant positions across the 2016–2020 mailings ranged from 94.3% to 100%, while at reference positions (no variant detected), the median correct response percentage was 100% across all mailings. When considering performance of individual laboratories, 89.5% (136 of 152) to 98.0% (149 of 152) of laboratories successfully met the detection threshold (≥90% of the variants present), while 94.6% (87 of 92) to 100% (163 of 163) of laboratories met the 95% specificity threshold across mailings. Conclusions.— Since the inception of this program, laboratories have consistently performed well. The median sensitivity and specificity of detection of sequence variants included in this program (eg, single nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions) were 100.0%.

Context.— As pharmacogenetic testing is incorporated into routine care, it is essential for laboratories to provide accurate and consistent results. Certified laboratories must successfully complete proficiency testing. Objectives.— To understand and examine trends in participation and performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing surveys. Design.— Results from College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing challenges from 2012 through 2017 were reviewed for concordance with expected genotype and phenotype for each sample (intended responses). Results.— Laboratories correctly reported results for 96.7% to 100% of samples with no variants. Excluding CYP2D6, laboratories correctly detected and reported variant alleles for each gene (93.7%–99.2% correct). CYP2D6 showed lower concordance, with 83.1% of laboratories reporting the intended genotype across all samples; however, in many cases, the laboratories that did not report a variant allele did not test for that allele. Among laboratories reporting the intended genotype, most successfully reported the intended phenotype (85.9%–99.0%). Conclusions.— Although laboratories are generally performing well, there is room for additional improvement, particularly for challenging genes, such as CYP2D6. Efforts in the field of pharmacogenomics to recommend alleles that should be included in clinical tests, identify reference materials, and standardize translation from genotype to phenotype may address some of the remaining variability in results.