Citations

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.

Introduction: In 2015, the US Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADC) implemented Version 3 of the Uniform Data Set (UDS). This paper describes the history of Version 3 development and the UDS data that are freely available to researchers. Methods: UDS Version 3 was developed after years of coordination between the National Institute on Aging-appointed Clinical Task Force (CTF), clinicians from ∼30 ADCs, and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC). The CTF recognized the need for updates to align with the state of the science in dementia research, while being flexible to the diverse needs and diseases studied at the ADCs. Version 3 also developed a nonproprietary neuropsychological battery. Results: This paper focuses on the substantial Version 3 changes to the UDS forms related to clinical diagnosis and characterization of clinical symptoms to match updated consensus-based diagnostic criteria. Between March 2015 and March 2018, 4820 participants were enrolled using UDS Version 3. Longitudinal data were available for 25,337 of the 37,568 total participants using all UDS versions. Discussion: The results from utilization of the UDS highlight the possibility for numerous research institutions to successfully collaborate, produce, and use standardized data collection instruments for over a decade.

Context.— The classification and prognosis determination in acute leukemia (AL) are complex and it is unclear what testing is being performed in practice. Objective.— To survey physicians describing their current practice of test ordering in the diagnosis of AL. Design.— In anticipation of a guideline by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society for Hematology on laboratory testing needed for the initial workup of AL, a baseline survey was designed by an expert panel from CAP. Members of professional societies were asked to describe their current practice of test ordering. Results.— Two hundred ninety-four responses were received with 258 respondents analyzed after the first qualifying survey question regarding initial diagnosis of AL. One hundred seventy-six of 249 respondents (70.7%) were board-certified hematopathologists. Flow cytometry and karyotype analysis were routinely performed for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (99.1% [232 of 234] and 96.2% [225 of 234], respectively) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (98.3% [229 of 233] and 96.6% [225 of 233], respectively). In addition, fluorescence in situ hybridization studies were routinely performed by 81.2% (190 of 234) of respondents for AML and 85.0% (198 of 233) of respondents for ALL; other molecular studies were performed by 78.2% (183) for AML and 54.9% (128) for ALL; immunohistochemistry by 44.9% (105) for AML and 47.6% (111) for ALL; and cytochemistry by 24.8% (58) for AML and 14.2% (33) for ALL. Conclusions.— While flow cytometry and karyotyping are routinely reported as being performed for the diagnosis of AL, there is marked variation in the reporting of testing patterns for other genetic studies, immunohistochemistry, and cytochemistry.