Moncur, Joel T.

Context.— In 2018, an evidence-based guideline was published by the College of American Pathologists to develop recommendations for the testing, application, interpretation, and reporting of high-risk human papillomavirus and surrogate marker tests in head and neck carcinomas. Substantial new evidence has prompted a review, including data on human papillomavirus (HPV) in nonoropharyngeal anatomic sites, HPV global rates, p16 immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing performance in cytology specimens, and performance of p16 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate marker. Objective.— To assess research published since the release of the original 2018 guideline and to update evidence-based recommendations for HPV testing in head and neck carcinomas. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts to update the guideline following the standards established by the National Academy of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The expert panel defined the key questions and performed a systematic review of the literature. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, recommendations were updated on the basis of available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments. Results.— Seven strong recommendations, 4 conditional recommendations, and 5 good practice statements are offered in the guideline update. Conclusions.— The updated guideline statements provide direction on the nature of HPV testing in various head and neck specimens (including key updates based on new research on sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma) and expanded guidance on specific scenarios and practice settings. The goal is to improve and standardize, where possible, HPV testing across diverse pathology practice settings and different countries.

Context.— Genomic reports are primarily organized in a narrative and unstructured format with variations in content and format. Regulatory requirements and professional guidelines for genetic test reporting exist but provide little guidance for effective communication of information. Objective.— To assess clinical genomic reporting practices across 5 disciplines within molecular diagnostics, including germline, somatic solid tumors, somatic hematologic malignancies, pharmacogenomics, and prenatal cell-free DNA screening. Design.— Reporting practices were assessed by using a structured review of clinical genomic reports from multiple laboratories in 5 molecular disciplines spanning different practice settings. Report content was reviewed by the presence/absence of from 27 to 44 elements, including 23 elements required by the College of American Pathologists and/or the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). If present, the element’s location on the report was recorded. Results.— A total of 69 genomics reports from 31 laboratories were reviewed. Overall, the reports were compliant with regulatory requirements but showed variability in both format and content. Six of 7 required reporting elements (per CLIA, 42 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 493.1291) were included in 90% of the reports. However, these elements were often located in different report sections. Only patient demographics were always found in a specific report section (header). Conclusions.— These results show that reports are overall compliant with regulatory requirements, despite some reporting elements being less consistently reported. The lack of consistent presentation of the data elements presents an opportunity to improve the communication of molecular testing results to clinicians and patients.

Abstract Objectives To describe mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing practices in laboratories using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) MSI/MMR proficiency testing programs prior to the 2022 publication of the MSI/MMR practice guidelines copublished by CAP and the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP). Methods Data from supplemental questionnaires provided with the 2020-B MSI/MMR programs to 542 laboratories across different practice settings were reviewed. Questionnaires contained 21 questions regarding the type of testing performed, specimen/tumor types used for testing, and clinical practices for checkpoint blockade therapy. Results Domestic laboratories test for MSI/MMR more often than international laboratories (P = .04) and academic hospitals/medical centers test more frequently than nonhospital sites/clinics (P = .03). The most commonly used testing modality is immunohistochemistry, followed by polymerase chain reaction, then next-generation sequencing. Most laboratories (72.6%; 347/478) reported awareness of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with high MSI or MMR-deficient results. Conclusions The results demonstrate the state of MMR and MSI testing in laboratories prior to the publication of the CAP/AMP best practice guidelines, highlighting differences between various laboratory types. The findings indicate the importance of consensus guidelines and provide a baseline for comparison after their implementation.

Context.— Title 45, section 164.524 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that health care systems must provide patient health records upon that patient’s request. For complex testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), this raises questions related to what data should be released and the laboratory considerations regarding the release of this data. Objective.— To describe the laboratory implications of releasing different NGS data files and the limitations for the clinical use of different NGS data files. Design.— The College of American Pathologists workgroup, composed of laboratorians with expertise regarding NGS testing, reviewed pertinent literature, including title 45, section 164.524, and the Health and Human Services “Guidance on Individuals’ Right to Access Health Information.” Results.— From an accreditation standpoint, validation of NGS includes both the wet bench and data processing (bioinformatics) portions, and appropriately validated laboratory testing is required to ensure quality patient results. NGS testing generates intermediate data files that have not completed the fully validated process but are often kept by the laboratory. These files may be requested by patients, but most patients will not be aware of the test validation process and the limitations of data that have not gone through a fully validated process. Conclusions.— Laboratories should encourage patients to receive their health data and to help individuals understand the content, uses, and limitations of laboratory data they have requested or received. NGS data used in a nonvalidated manner should not be used for clinical purposes without confirmation by a clinically validated method.

Context Next-generation sequencing–based approaches using RNA have increasingly been used by clinical laboratories for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events. Correspondingly, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has advanced RNA sequencing proficiency testing (PT) to ensure optimal performance of these assays. Objective To report on laboratory performance and practices of RNA sequencing for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events using CAP PT data from 8 mailings (2018-A through 2021-B). Design CAP PT RNA sequencing program results from 153 laboratories across 24 proficiency test specimens, interrogating 22 distinct engineered fusion transcripts, were analyzed for correct identification of the fusion event, associated performance variables, and laboratory practices. Results Overall, the 4-year program detection rate (sensitivity) was 95.5% (1486 of 1556 results). False-negative rates were 3.6% (53 of 1463) and 18.3% (17 of 93) for fusion gene and intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events, respectively. Only 19 false-positive results were reported among the 8 PT mailings, and most were likely the result of preanalytical or postanalytical errors. There were no practice characteristics (eg, instrumentation, sequencing method) significantly associated with the fusion detection results. Conclusions These data reveal a high overall sensitivity and specificity for fusion gene detection by participating laboratories using clinical RNA sequencing. Performance was comparable across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. The fraction of false-negative results for intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events was greater than that for the chimeric fusion genes. False-negative results could not be attributed to any specific practice characteristics.

Context.— Clinical testing for tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has evolved rapidly, but no practice guidelines exist. Objective.— To summarize cfDNA laboratory practices based on self-reporting and assess preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical trends that may influence the quality, accuracy, and consistency of cfDNA testing. Design.— Data were derived from the College of American Pathologists cfDNA proficiency testing program submitted by 101 participating laboratories from 2018 to 2019. Results.— Most laboratories performing clinical circulating tumor DNA testing are commercial/nonhospital (71.2%; 72 of 101) and international (77.2%; 78 of 101) laboratories. Commercial laboratories had higher monthly test volumes than hospital-based laboratories (median, 36 versus 7–8) and tended to have larger gene panels (median, 50 versus 11 genes) when panel-based testing was offered. The main clinical indications include therapy selection and treatment/disease monitoring. Plasma is the most commonly accepted specimen, which is predominantly collected in cell-stabilizing tubes. Equal proportions of laboratories use next-generation sequencing (NGS) and non-NGS methods to assess key genes, including EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1. Most laboratories reported a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 0.5%, variant allele frequency or less, which did not differ by method, NGS or non-NGS, except for EGFR. Sixty-five percent (17 of 26) of laboratories using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-NGS EGFR assay report analytical sensitivities higher than 0.5%, as compared to 15% (16 of 104) of laboratories using an alternative NGS or non-NGS method. There is also a wider range in LLODs obtained for the FDA-approved EGFR assay than nonapproved assays. Conclusions.— These results highlight emerging practice trends and serve as a foundation to initiate future practice recommendations.

e13681 Background: Cell-free tumor DNA or circulating tumor DNA tests are increasingly used in clinical care to detect somatic mutations from solid tumors. However, data on laboratory performance characteristics using standardized samples is limited. Methods: Well-characterized reference materials were used for the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cell-free tumor DNA proficiency testing surveys, which consisted of stabilized DNA fragmented to simulate cell-free DNA in a synthetic plasma matrix. For the 2018A, 2018B, 2019A and 2019B surveys, laboratories tested for hotspot mutations (single and dinucleotide sequence changes) in EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 at variant allele fractions ranging from 0.1% - 1.0%. As per CAP proficiency testing standards, results were scored according to the known mutation(s) engineered at designated variant allele fractions in each PT sample. Nine laboratories were excluded from analysis because they provided incomplete results. Statistical significance was calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 101 laboratories submitted survey results for at least one proficiency testing mailing. There were 5088 total proficiency testing responses for EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations across 12 different samples. For the 3585 responses submitted for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1, sensitivity ranged from 94.6 – 100%, while specificity exceeded 99%. There were no significant differences in performance between analytical methodologies for BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1 mutations. Performance characteristics for EGFR mutations among the 1503 responses showed a combined sensitivity of 87.1% and specificity of 98.7%. For laboratories detecting mutations in EGFR, next-generation sequencing methods exhibited a sensitivity (true positivity) of 95.7% while the sensitivity of non-NGS methods was lower at 81.7% ( P= 0.02). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for clinical laboratories performing cell-free tumor DNA tests. For EGFR mutations, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods. These data suggest excellent overall agreement among laboratories performing clinical cell-free tumor DNA tests. Further investigation across variant allele fractions and additional variant types is warranted.

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.