Yuhas, Jason

Abstract Objectives We investigated the impact of our laboratory’s reflex testing process for resolving ERBB2 (HER2) status on breast cancer samples that require additional workup after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), per guideline recommendations published in 2018 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP). Methods In total, 500 breast cancer specimens with ERBB2 FISH results in groups 2 through 4 (all reported as immunohistochemistry [IHC] equivocal [2+] at external laboratories) were resubmitted for IHC testing in our laboratory. Per the ASCO/CAP guideline, FISH was rescored when internal IHC was also equivocal (2+), targeted to tumor areas demonstrating more intense IHC staining, if observed. Results Reflex IHC/FISH testing changed the final reported ERBB2 status in 185 of 500 (37.0%) samples. Result changes included discordant IHC (n = 4 score 0, n = 132 score 1+, and n = 16 score 3+) and discordant FISH (n = 33). Numerical differences in FISH scores were comparable for targeted vs nontargeted FISH rescoring (P = .086 for ERBB2 copy number; P = .49 for ERBB2 ratio). Two cases showed larger differences in FISH scores, suggesting heterogeneity. Conclusions Retesting of breast cancer samples with equivocal IHC frequently changes IHC results, but targeted reanalysis of borderline FISH results rarely identifies significant differences in ERBB2 copy number or ratio.

Context.— Guidelines for HER2 testing in breast cancer have changed over time, from the US Food and Drug Administration guideline to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidelines published in 2007, 2013, and 2018. Objective.— To investigate the change in assignment of HER2 status in breast cancers with equivocal (2+) immunohistochemistry (IHC) results by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) following implementation of the ASCO/CAP 2018 guideline. Design.— The study included 3556 invasive breast cancers that were HER2 equivocal (2+) by IHC and were submitted to our FISH laboratory after July 2018. Reflex testing (with repeat IHC staining) was performed on certain categories of FISH results known as groups 2, 3, and 4. Concomitant review of IHC and FISH was performed on these reflex cases per 2018 guideline recommendations. The FISH data were analyzed to compare US Food and Drug Administration and ASCO/CAP 2007, 2013, and 2018 interpretations. Results.— Of 3548 invasive breast cancers with complete data available, the percentage agreement for FISH according to different guidelines was highest for ASCO/CAP 2018 versus US Food and Drug Administration (96.5%), followed by ASCO/CAP 2018 versus 2007 (93.8%), and lowest with ASCO/CAP 2018 versus 2013 (83.7%). Per the 2018 guideline, reflex IHC testing was performed on 633 breast cancers (17.8%); the majority of reflex testing results were negative (541 of 633; 85.5%). The overall distribution of HER2 FISH results (per the 2018 guideline) was 88.5% negative and 11.5% positive. Conclusions.— By eliminating the equivocal FISH category, the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline significantly reduced the HER2 FISH–positive rate in tumors with equivocal (2+) IHC results.

Context.— One goal of the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities in both constitutional and neoplastic specimens, including hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (1999–2018) of conventional chromosome challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 1999 through 2018 to identify karyotype challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was examined to identify potential recurring errors of clinical significance. Results.— Of 288 total conventional chromosome challenges from 1999–2018, 87 (30.2%) were presented in the context of a hematologic neoplasm, based on the provided clinical history, specimen type, and/or chromosomal abnormalities. For these 87 hematologic neoplasm challenges, 91 individual cases were provided and graded on the basis of abnormality recognition and karyotype nomenclature (ISCN, International System for Human Cytogenomic [previously Cytogenetic] Nomenclature). Of the 91 cases, 89 (97.8%) and 87 (95.6%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading of abnormality recognition and correct karyotype nomenclature, respectively. The 2 cases (2 of 91; 2.2%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for abnormality recognition had complex karyotypes. The 4 cases (4 of 91; 4.4%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for correct karyotype nomenclature were the result of incorrect abnormality recognition (2 cases), missing brackets in the karyotype (1 case), and incorrect breakpoint designation (1 case). Conclusions.— This 20-year review demonstrates clinical cytogenetics laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.