Toydemir, Reha M.

Background: The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure the competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetic testing laboratories through proficiency testing (PT) programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of cytogenetic abnormalities in solid tumors. Methods: Review and analyze 25 years (1999–2023) of solid tumor chromosome analysis PT results, utilizing G-banded karyograms. A retrospective review of results from 1999 to 2023 was performed, identifying the challenges addressing solid tumors. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results: A total of 21 solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 1999–2018. No solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 2019–2023. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for the evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. All 21 cases reached 80% grading consensus for abnormality recognition. However, five cases (24%) failed to reach consensus for nomenclature reporting by participating laboratories. These cases illustrate errors in reporting chromosomal abnormalities, including whole-arm translocations and those involving sex chromosomes. In addition, they highlight the challenges with differentiation of terminal and interstitial deletions, difficulties in identifying correct breakpoints, and omission of brackets in neoplastic cases. Conclusions: This comprehensive 25-year review demonstrates the exceptional proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in accurately identifying chromosome abnormalities in solid tumors, while also highlighting the challenges of reporting specific types of chromosomal abnormalities.

Context.— The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetics testing laboratories through proficiency testing programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of constitutional abnormalities. Objective.— To review and analyze 20 years of constitutional chromosome analysis proficiency testing results (2003–2022), primarily utilizing G-banded karyograms. Design.— A retrospective review of results from 2003 through 2022 was performed, identifying challenges addressing constitutional disorders. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results.— A total of 184 cases from 161 proficiency testing challenges were administered from 2003 through 2022. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. Of the 184 cases, only 2 (1%) failed to reach an 80% grading consensus for recognition of the abnormality. Both cases illustrated the limitations of correctly characterizing some chromosomal abnormalities, including recombinant chromosomal abnormalities and isochromosome identification. In addition, 2 cases failed to reach a consensus for nomenclature reporting: 1 with an isochromosome and another with a duplication. Conclusions.— This 20-year review illustrates the high rate of competency and proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in the correct identification of constitutional chromosome abnormalities.

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.