Souers, Rhona J.

Context.— Unsatisfactory Papanicolaou (Pap) tests pose a unique set of challenges to the laboratory with regard to their processing, review, reporting, and performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. There are no standardized guidelines for the review process and handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests. Objective.— To assess the current practice patterns regarding various aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test, from processing to reporting, across laboratories worldwide. Design.— A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program, requesting data regarding the unsatisfactory Pap test. Results.— Of 1520 participating laboratories, 619 (40.7%) responded, and the responses of 577 laboratories were included for further analysis. Only 64.6% (373 of 577) laboratories used the unsatisfactory Pap test criteria as specified by the 2014 Bethesda System. About three-quarters of the respondents (433 of 576; 75.2%) routinely rescreened unsatisfactory Pap tests. Routine repreparation of such Pap tests was performed by 54.9% (316 of 576) of laboratories, and 52.0% (293 of 563) used glacial acetic acid for repreparing excessively bloody specimens. HPV test results were reported for unsatisfactory Pap tests, always or sometimes, by 62.4% (353 of 566) of respondents. Conclusions.— This CAP survey reveals important information regarding the practice patterns pertaining to several aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test. It also provides valuable insight into the quality assurance measures that can be implemented for such tests. Future studies can further aid in the standardization of all components of the handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests for overall quality improvement.

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.

Context.— Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. Objective.— To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. Design.— We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. Results.— Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. Conclusions.— For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype–guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.

Context.— Clinical and forensic testing for ethanol biomarkers, including ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS), is used to discern alcohol use from abstinence. These markers can be key in major decisions, including transplant eligibility or retaining licensure after alcohol misuse. Accuracy, precision, and recognition of the implications of reporting cutoffs are all essential for correct interpretation. Objective.— To evaluate trends in testing for EtG and EtS, including how laboratories perform testing and how comparable participant results are. Design.— The study examined the College of American Pathologists ethanol biomarker proficiency testing survey from 2013 to 2019. Trends in methodology, reporting cutoffs, and participant performance were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative EtG testing and for quantitative EtS testing. Results.— There was little consensus in reporting cutoffs, which ranged from 10 to 1000 ng/mL for EtG and 10 to 1500 ng/mL for EtS. Although median EtG and EtS compared well with target concentrations, individual participants' results varied widely. For quantitative enzyme immunoassay, accuracy and precision were best in EtG challenges less than 1500 ng/mL. For EtG or EtS by mass spectrometry, overall accuracy was good over a wide concentration range, but variability between participants was high. Approximately 10% (409 of 4059) of results were unacceptable, which for mass spectrometry corresponded to more than 35% above or below the group mean. Conclusions.— Although many participants performed well, there was insufficient consensus in reporting cutoffs, and a consistent fraction of laboratories failed to achieve survey standards. Guidelines for assay performance and reporting could greatly benefit laboratories and end users.

Abstract Context. —The Joint Commission and the College of American Pathologists have emphasized improved communication as a strategy to improve patient safety and reduce errors. Objective. —To determine current policies and practices concerning critical and/or significant and unexpected results in anatomic pathology. Design. —A survey was distributed with the 2007 D mailing of the Performance Improvement Program slides. The survey included questions that determined laboratory size, practice setting, and anatomic pathology critical and/or significant and unexpected result policies and practices. Results. —Surveys from 1130 laboratories were received. A total of 75% had a written policy regarding anatomic pathology critical and/or significant and unexpected results; 25% did not. A total of 30% of laboratories with written policies stated that their policies included guidelines but did not include specific examples. A total of 33% listed 5 or fewer specific examples, 18% listed more than 5 examples, and 19% stated that they had a specifically defined list of significant and unexpected and/or critical diagnoses. The conditions that were listed included malignancies (48% of all laboratories), findings not expected by the clinical history (45%), life-threatening infections (45%), no chorionic villi in products of conception (37%), inflammatory or immunologic processes (19%), and organ rejection (14%). Laboratories with a higher median number of accessioned surgical and cytology cases and independent laboratories tended to have policies with more than 5 specific examples or precise lists of must-call diagnoses ( P < .001). Conclusions. —This survey illustrates current anatomic pathology policies and practices with respect to critical and significant and unexpected results.

Abstract Context.—Minimum cellular criteria for satisfactory Papanicolaou tests were established with the Bethesda System in 2001, and unsatisfactory rates are used as a quality-reporting measure. Objective.—To evaluate practices and unsatisfactory rates from laboratories responding to the 2007 College of American Pathologists supplemental questionnaire survey. Design.—In 2007, a supplemental questionnaire was mailed to 1621 laboratories enrolled in the 2006 College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytology (PAP Education), requesting data from the 2006 calendar year. Unsatisfactory rates, reasons for unsatisfactory specimens, laboratory size, and specimen preparation type were analyzed. Results.—A total of 42% of the laboratories responded to the survey. Most of those laboratories (637 of 674; 94.5%) used the Bethesda System minimum cellularity criteria. Of those laboratories responding, 79% (527 of 667) used the Bethesda System criteria for atrophic or postirradiation specimens. Unsatisfactory rates have increased since 1996. SurePath preparations were associated with the lowest unsatisfactory rate (50th percentile, 0.30; 95th percentile, 1.3), conventional Papanicolaou tests had the highest 95th percentile rates (50th percentile, 1.0; 95th percentile, 5.90), and ThinPrep specimens had the highest median percentile (50th percentile, 1.1; 95th percentile, 3.4). The most-common reason for unsatisfactory Papanicolaou tests was too few squamous cells. Air-drying artifact was the least-common reason for unsatisfactory reporting for liquid-based preparations. Conclusions.—Use of the Bethesda System criteria for unsatisfactory specimens is widespread. Unsatisfactory rates have increased since 1996; however, the median rates are 1.1% or less for all preparations. Results from the College of American Pathologists PAP Education supplemental questionnaire continue to provide valuable benchmarking data for cytologic quality-improvement programs in laboratories.

Abstract Context. —There are multiple elements that can be measured to assess the quality of a surgical pathology laboratory. Overall customer satisfaction is an excellent “global” measure, because it highlights the unique insight of laboratory performance from the users' perspective. Objective. —To measure customer satisfaction with surgical pathology reports. Design. —This study was based on a subscription Q-Tracks study. Voluntary participants were asked to distribute and collect a minimum of 25 surveys per quarter from their clients. Four parameters were graded, which included overall satisfaction, report turnaround time (TAT), completeness, and style on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Each laboratory submitted quarterly data to the College of American Pathologists, where the data were tabulated and analyzed. Each laboratory could compare their performance in all 4 measures against the entire cohort or a selected subgroup of laboratories. Overall customer satisfaction with surgical pathology reports and 3 subcategories of report TAT, completeness, and style were the main outcome measures. Results. —This study ran during 2004 and 2005, with 41 and 33 participant laboratories, respectively. The median score for overall satisfaction, TAT, completeness, and style were 4.57, 4.31, 4.62, and 4.64 in 2004, and 4.64, 4.56, 4.65, and 4.68 in 2005, respectively. Most laboratories reported results for 4 quarters or fewer. There was no statistically significant change in overall satisfaction over time. Conclusions. —Overall satisfaction scores for surgical pathology reports as well as satisfaction with report TAT, completeness, and style were high. Report TAT received the lowest scores of all parameters.

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.

Context.— Serum tests used for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathies include serum protein electrophoresis (SPE; agarose gel or capillary zone), immunofixation (IFE) and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis, serum free light chains, quantitative immunoglobulins, and heavy/light–chain combinations. Urine protein electrophoresis and urine IFE may also be used to identify Bence-Jones proteinuria. Objective.— To assess current laboratory practice for monoclonal gammopathy testing. Design.— In April 2016, a voluntary questionnaire was distributed to 923 laboratories participating in a protein electrophoresis proficiency testing survey. Results.— Seven hundred seventy-four laboratories from 38 countries and regions completed the questionnaire (83.9% response rate; 774 of 923). The majority of participants (68.6%; 520 of 758) used agarose gel electrophoresis as their SPE method, whereas 31.4% (238 of 758) used capillary zone electrophoresis. The most common test approaches used in screening were SPE with reflex to IFE/immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (39.3%; 299 of 760); SPE only (19.1%; 145 of 760); SPE and IFE or immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (13.9%; 106 of 760); and SPE with IFE, serum free light chain, and quantitative immunoglobulins (11.8%; 90 of 760). Only 39.8% (305 of 767) of laboratories offered panel testing for ordering convenience. Although SPE was used by most laboratories in diagnosing new cases of myeloma, when laboratories reported the primary test used to follow patients with monoclonal gammopathy, only 55.7% (403 of 724) chose SPE, with the next most common selections being IFE (18.9%; 137 of 724), serum free light chain (11.7%; 85 of 724), and immunosubtraction capillary electrophoresis (2.1%; 15 of 724). Conclusions.— Ordering and testing practices for the screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy vary widely across laboratories. Improving utilization management and report content, as well as recognition and development of laboratory-directed testing guidelines, may serve to enhance the clinical value of testing.