Tsuchiya, Karen D.

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.— Next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based assays are used for diagnosis of diverse inherited disorders. Limited data are available pertaining to interlaboratory analytical performance of these assays. Objective.— To report on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) NGS Germline Program, which is methods based, and explore the evolution in laboratory testing practices. Design.— Results from the NGS Germline Program from 2016–2020 were analyzed for interlaboratory analytical performance. Self-reported laboratory testing practices were also evaluated. Results.— From 2016–2020, a total of 297 laboratories participated in at least 1 program mailing. Of the 289 laboratories that provided information on tests offered, 138 (47.8%) offered only panel testing throughout their enrollment, while 35 (12.1%) offered panels and exome testing, 30 (10.4%) offered only exomes, 9 (3.1%) offered only genomes, and 15 (5.2%) offered panels, exomes, and genomes. The remainder (62 laboratories, 21.4%) changed their test offerings during the 2016–2020 timeframe. Considering each genomic position/interval, the median detection percentage at variant positions across the 2016–2020 mailings ranged from 94.3% to 100%, while at reference positions (no variant detected), the median correct response percentage was 100% across all mailings. When considering performance of individual laboratories, 89.5% (136 of 152) to 98.0% (149 of 152) of laboratories successfully met the detection threshold (≥90% of the variants present), while 94.6% (87 of 92) to 100% (163 of 163) of laboratories met the 95% specificity threshold across mailings. Conclusions.— Since the inception of this program, laboratories have consistently performed well. The median sensitivity and specificity of detection of sequence variants included in this program (eg, single nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions) were 100.0%.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.

Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.