Abstract Context. —Molecular pathology is a rapidly growing area of laboratory medicine in which DNA and RNA are analyzed. The recent introduction of array technology has added another layer of complexity involving massive parallel analysis of multiple genes, transcripts, or proteins. Objective. —As molecular technologies are increasingly implemented in clinical settings, it is important to bring uniformity to the way that test results are reported. Data Sources. —The College of American Pathologists Molecular Pathology Resource Committee members summarize elements that are already common to virtually all molecular pathology reports, as set forth in the College of American Pathologists checklists used in the laboratory accreditation process. Consensus recommendations are proposed to improve report format and content, and areas of controversy are discussed. Resources are cited that promote use of proper gene nomenclature and that describe methods for reporting mutations, translocations, microsatellite instability, and other genetic alterations related to inherited disease, cancer, identity testing, microbiology, and pharmacogenetics. Conclusions. —These resources and recommendations provide a framework for composing patient reports to convey molecular test results and their clinical significance to members of the health care team.
Preanalytics and Precision Pathology: Pathology Practices to Ensure Molecular Integrity of Cancer Patient Biospecimens for Precision Medicine
Biospecimens acquired during routine medical practice are the primary sources of molecular information about patients and their diseases that underlies precision medicine and translational research. In cancer care, molecular analysis of biospecimens is especially common because it often determines treatment choices and may be used to monitor therapy in real time. However, patient specimens are collected, handled, and processed according to routine clinical procedures during which they are subjected to factors that may alter their molecular quality and composition. Such artefactual alteration may skew data from molecular analyses, render analysis data uninterpretable, or even preclude analysis altogether if the integrity of a specimen is severely compromised. As a result, patient care and safety may be affected, and medical research dependent on patient samples may be compromised. Despite these issues, there is currently no requirement to control or record preanalytical variables in clinical practice with the single exception of breast cancer tissue handled according to the guideline jointly developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (CAP) and enforced through the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program. Recognizing the importance of molecular data derived from patient specimens, the CAP Personalized Healthcare Committee established the Preanalytics for Precision Medicine Project Team to develop a basic set of evidence-based recommendations for key preanalytics for tissue and blood specimens. If used for biospecimens from patients, these preanalytical recommendations would ensure the fitness of those specimens for molecular analysis and help to assure the quality and reliability of the analysis data.
The Lifecycle of an Evidence-Based Laboratory Practice Guideline: Origin, Update, Affirmation, and Impact!
Molecular Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer: Guideline Summary From the American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology
Abstract Objectives: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods: The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results: Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions: Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.
Molecular Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer: Guideline From the American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology
Objectives.— To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods.— The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results.— Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions.— Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Identifies a Subset of Crizotinib-Responsive
ALK
-Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Not Detected by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization
Abstract Introduction. For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to benefit from ALK inhibitors, sensitive and specific detection of ALK genomic rearrangements is needed. ALK break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved and standard-of-care diagnostic assay, but identification of ALK rearrangements by other methods reported in NSCLC cases that tested negative for ALK rearrangements by FISH suggests a significant false-negative rate. We report here a large series of NSCLC cases assayed by hybrid-capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care. Materials and Methods. Hybrid-capture-based CGP using next-generation sequencing was performed in the course of clinical care of 1,070 patients with advanced lung cancer. Each tumor sample was evaluated for all classes of genomic alterations, including base-pair substitutions, insertions/deletions, copy number alterations and rearrangements, as well as fusions/rearrangements. Results. A total of 47 patients (4.4%) were found to harbor ALK rearrangements, of whom 41 had an EML4-ALK fusion, and 6 had other fusion partners, including 3 previously unreported rearrangement events: EIF2AK-ALK, PPM1B-ALK, and PRKAR1A-ALK. Of 41 patients harboring ALK rearrangements, 31 had prior FISH testing results available. Of these, 20 were ALK FISH positive, and 11 (35%) were ALK FISH negative. Of the latter 11 patients, 9 received crizotinib based on the CGP results, and 7 achieved a response with median duration of 17 months. Conclusion. Comprehensive genomic profiling detected canonical ALK rearrangements and ALK rearrangements with noncanonical fusion partners in a subset of patients with NSCLC with previously negative ALK FISH results. In this series, such patients had durable responses to ALK inhibitors, comparable to historical response rates for ALK FISH-positive cases.
Mining Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tissues: A Wealth of Knowledge or Fool's Gold?