Citations

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.— The diagnosis and clinical management of patients with diffuse gliomas (DGs) have evolved rapidly over the past decade with the emergence of molecular biomarkers that are used to classify, stratify risk, and predict treatment response for optimal clinical care. Objective.— To develop evidence-based recommendations for informing molecular biomarker testing for pediatric and adult patients with DGs and provide guidance for appropriate laboratory test and biomarker selection for optimal diagnosis, risk stratification, and prediction. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop recommendations. A systematic review of literature was conducted to address the overarching question, “What ancillary tests are needed to classify DGs and sufficiently inform the clinical management of patients?” Recommendations were derived from quality of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. Results.— Thirteen recommendations and 3 good practice statements were established to guide pathologists and treating physicians on the most appropriate methods and molecular biomarkers to include in laboratory testing to inform clinical management of patients with DGs. Conclusions.— Evidence-based incorporation of laboratory results from molecular biomarker testing into integrated diagnoses of DGs provides reproducible and clinically meaningful information for patient management.

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.

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.

Context Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies. Objective To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors. Design The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology. Results The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement. Conclusions Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.