Mixon, Christopher

Context.— One objective of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and clinical interpretation of abnormalities observed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis when evaluating hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (2005–2024) of FISH challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 2005 through 2024 to identify FISH challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was evaluated to identify potential recurring errors of clinical relevance. Results.— A total of 124 hematologic neoplasm FISH challenges from 2005 to 2024 were provided to participating laboratories, including 45 paper challenges (results and/or images were provided for interpretation purposes), 43 liquid challenges (bone marrow aspirate or peripheral blood), and 36 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue challenges. Of the 124 challenges, 120 (97%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading purposes. Of the 4 failed challenges (3%), 2 (1 liquid, 1 paper) involved the interpretation of atypical FISH signal patterns; 1 (paper) involved the interpretation of FISH signal patterns correlating involvement by myeloid versus lymphoid interphase nuclei; and 1 (liquid) likely involved a specimen processing or handling error that resulted in discordant participant responses. All 36 FFPE tissue challenges exceeded the 80% consensus for grading purposes. Conclusions.— This 20-year retrospective review demonstrates that clinical cytogenomic laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and interpretation of FISH abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.

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.