Kalicanin, Tanja

Context.— In 2016, the College of American Pathologists published an evidence-based guideline to develop recommendations for interpretive diagnostic error reduction in anatomic pathology. New evidence, together with evolving practice environments and the continued adoption of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, has prompted a review of the guideline. Objective.— To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and update evidence-based recommendations for the reduction of diagnostic errors. Design.— The College of American Pathologists, in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Subspecialty Pathology, convened a panel of experts to update the 2016 evidence-based guideline. A systematic literature review was conducted to address 4 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results.— Two strong recommendations and 4 good practice statements were established for the reduction of diagnostic error. Conclusions.— The expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists implement procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect and correct potential interpretive errors to improve patient outcomes.

Context.— Treatments are available for common forms of systemic amyloidosis that show promise for extending and improving the quality of life for patients. Early diagnosis and accurate identification of amyloid fibril type are crucial for successful treatment, but the diagnosis and workup of amyloidosis is inconsistent among pathologists and laboratories. Thus, the goal of this guideline is to offer recommendations for proper testing and workup for amyloidosis to optimize patient care. Objective.— To establish evidence-based recommendations for appropriate laboratory testing to detect amyloidosis and identify the specific amyloidogenic protein. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts to develop recommendations following the standards established by the National Academy of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The panel conducted a systematic literature review addressing 6 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the framework. Results.— Four conditional recommendations and 3 good practice statements were established to provide guidance for proper testing and workup of amyloidosis. Conclusions.— This guideline summarizes the available evidence on the diagnosis and workup of systemic amyloidosis in tissue samples, including the challenges and limitations of common approaches and techniques. Recommendations for pathologists and laboratories receiving these samples are provided.

Context.— In 2018, an evidence-based guideline was published by the College of American Pathologists to develop recommendations for the testing, application, interpretation, and reporting of high-risk human papillomavirus and surrogate marker tests in head and neck carcinomas. Substantial new evidence has prompted a review, including data on human papillomavirus (HPV) in nonoropharyngeal anatomic sites, HPV global rates, p16 immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing performance in cytology specimens, and performance of p16 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate marker. Objective.— To assess research published since the release of the original 2018 guideline and to update evidence-based recommendations for HPV testing in head and neck carcinomas. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts to update the guideline following the standards established by the National Academy of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The expert panel defined the key questions and performed a systematic review of the literature. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, recommendations were updated on the basis of available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments. Results.— Seven strong recommendations, 4 conditional recommendations, and 5 good practice statements are offered in the guideline update. Conclusions.— The updated guideline statements provide direction on the nature of HPV testing in various head and neck specimens (including key updates based on new research on sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma) and expanded guidance on specific scenarios and practice settings. The goal is to improve and standardize, where possible, HPV testing across diverse pathology practice settings and different countries.

e13681 Background: Cell-free tumor DNA or circulating tumor DNA tests are increasingly used in clinical care to detect somatic mutations from solid tumors. However, data on laboratory performance characteristics using standardized samples is limited. Methods: Well-characterized reference materials were used for the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cell-free tumor DNA proficiency testing surveys, which consisted of stabilized DNA fragmented to simulate cell-free DNA in a synthetic plasma matrix. For the 2018A, 2018B, 2019A and 2019B surveys, laboratories tested for hotspot mutations (single and dinucleotide sequence changes) in EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 at variant allele fractions ranging from 0.1% - 1.0%. As per CAP proficiency testing standards, results were scored according to the known mutation(s) engineered at designated variant allele fractions in each PT sample. Nine laboratories were excluded from analysis because they provided incomplete results. Statistical significance was calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 101 laboratories submitted survey results for at least one proficiency testing mailing. There were 5088 total proficiency testing responses for EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations across 12 different samples. For the 3585 responses submitted for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1, sensitivity ranged from 94.6 – 100%, while specificity exceeded 99%. There were no significant differences in performance between analytical methodologies for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations. Performance characteristics for EGFR mutations among the 1503 responses showed a combined sensitivity of 87.1% and specificity of 98.7%. For laboratories detecting mutations in EGFR, next-generation sequencing methods exhibited a sensitivity (true positivity) of 95.7% while the sensitivity of non-NGS methods was lower at 81.7% ( P= 0.02). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for clinical laboratories performing cell-free tumor DNA tests. For EGFR mutations, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods. These data suggest excellent overall agreement among laboratories performing clinical cell-free tumor DNA tests. Further investigation across variant allele fractions and additional variant types is warranted.