Search

Background: Molecular testing of thyroid nodules is increasingly being utilized to guide clinical management decisions. RAS mutations are the most frequent mutations detected in the context of an indeterminate fine-needle aspiration (FNA) diagnosis. The term 'noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features' (NIFTP) was recently introduced to promote conservative management of tumors previously classified as noninvasive follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC). This change in terminology was based on the indolent clinical behavior of these tumors and their molecular profile, which includes frequent RAS mutations. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of RAS-mutant 'carcinomas' that would now be classified as NIFTPs. Methods: A search was performed for cases with known activating RAS mutations in a database of 199 thyroid carcinomas that underwent molecular characterization as part of Profile:Oncopanel between July 2013 and July 2015. Cases of FVPTC were re-reviewed to identify tumors that now would be categorized as NIFTP. Preceding FNA diagnoses were recorded, and cases with an indeterminate FNA result (defined as a diagnosis of atypia/follicular lesion of undetermined significance, suspicious for follicular neoplasm, or suspicious for malignancy) were identified. Results: A total of 27 RAS-mutant thyroid tumors were identified. Fifteen (56%) cases had an NRAS mutation, nine (33%) had an HRAS mutation, and three (11%) had a KRAS mutation. Twenty-four (89%) cases had a preceding FNA, 19 (79%) of which had an indeterminate FNA diagnosis. The surgical resection specimen demonstrated FVPTC in 20 (74%) cases, classical type PTC in two (7%), solid variant of PTC in one (4%), and follicular thyroid carcinoma in four (15%). Of the 20 FVPTCs, 16 (80%) would now be classified as NIFTP. NIFTPs accounted for 59% of RAS-mutant carcinomas overall and 63% of RAS-mutant carcinomas with a prior indeterminate FNA diagnosis. Conclusion: NIFTPs accounted for more than half of RAS-mutant 'carcinomas' in this cohort. In cases where clinical and sonographic data support a low-risk phenotype, these results suggest that a lobectomy should be considered as the initial surgical approach for a nodule with an indeterminate FNA diagnosis and a RAS mutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the detection of activating MAP2K1 mutations in patients with atypical hairy cell leukemia and hairy cell leukemia variant (HCLv). The study investigated the cases of patients who also demonstrated the BRAFV600E mutation. The results showed the association of MAP2K1 mutations with preferential usage of the IGHV4-34 variable gene segment.

Background: The diversity of clinical tumor profiling approaches (small panels to whole exomes with matched or unmatched germline analysis) may engender uncertainty about their benefits and liabilities, particularly in light of reported germline false positives in tumor-only profiling and use of global mutational and/or neoantigen data. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of genomic analysis strategies on error rates and data interpretation across contexts and ancestries. Methods: We modeled common tumor profiling modalities--large (n = 300 genes), medium (n = 48 genes), and small (n = 15 genes) panels--using clinical whole exomes (WES) from 157 patients with lung or colon adenocarcinoma. We created a tumor-only analysis algorithm to assess germline false positive rates, the impact of patient ancestry on tumor-only results, and neoantigen detection. Results: After optimizing a germline filtering strategy, the germline false positive rate with tumor-only large panel sequencing was 14% (144/1012 variants). For patients whose tumor-only results underwent molecular pathologist review (n = 91), 50/54 (93%) false positives were correctly interpreted as uncertain variants. Increased germline false positives were observed in tumor-only sequencing of non-European compared with European ancestry patients (p < 0.001; Fisher's exact) when basic germline filtering approaches were used; however, the ExAC database (60,706 germline exomes) mitigated this disparity (p = 0.53). Matched and unmatched large panel mutational load correlated with WES mutational load (r2 = 0.99 and 0.93, respectively; p < 0.001). Neoantigen load also correlated (r2 = 0.80; p < 0.001), though WES identified a broader spectrum of neoantigens. Small panels did not predict mutational or neoantigen load. Conclusions: Large tumor-only targeted panels are sufficient for most somatic variant identification and mutational load prediction if paired with expanded germline analysis strategies and molecular pathologist review. Paired germline sequencing reduced overall false positive mutation calls and WES provided the most neoantigens. Without patient-matched germline data, large germline databases are needed to minimize false positive mutation calling and mitigate ethnic disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of a Russell viper venom-based activated protein C resistance (APCR) screening test relative to DNA analysis for the factor V Leiden mutation. Methods: We evaluated the concordance between Pefakit APCR screening results and DNA analysis for 435 patients homozygous (n = 11), heterozygous (n = 310), or wild-type (n =114) for the G1691A allele. Results: Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, we found that a cutoff of 1.89 for the APCR ratio yields a sensitivity and specificity of 99.1%. In patients with discrepant genotype-phenotype correlation, their APCR may provide a more clinically relevant result. Conclusions: We compared several strategies for employing reflex testing and found that performing initial APCR screening followed by confirmatory molecular analysis on a subset of cases in the borderline regions between the diagnostic groups can reduce unnecessary testing by approximately 80% without compromising diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.-To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Participants.-Three co-chairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. Evidence.-Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture articles published from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. Evidence was formally graded for each recommendation. Consensus Process.-Initial recommendations were formulated by the co-chairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). Conclusions.-The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

About 10% of patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) respond to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). More than 75% of "responders" have activating mutations in EGFR. However, mutation analysis is not widely available, and proposed alternatives (in situ hybridization and immunohistochemical analysis) have shown inconsistent associations with outcome. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), immunohistochemical analysis, and DNA sequencing were compared in this study of 40 NSCLC samples from TKI-treated patients. Response rates were 12 of 19 in EGFR-mutant vs 1 of 20 EGFR wild-type tumors (P = .0001), 7 of 19 FISH+ vs 4 of 17 FISH- tumors (not significant [NS]), 5 of 16 CISH+ vs 6 of 21 CISH- tumors (NS), and 3 of 9 immunohistochemically positive vs 7 of 22 immunohistochemically negative tumors (NS). EGFR mutation was associated with improved progression-free survival (P = .0004). Increased copy number (FISH or CISH) and protein expression (immunohistochemical) did not independently predict outcome. Thus, EGFR sequence analysis was the only method useful for predicting response and progression-free survival following TKI therapy in NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.-- The Sustainable Predictive Oncology Therapeutics and Diagnostics quality assurance pilot study (SPOT/Dx pilot) on molecular oncology next-generation sequencing (NGS) reportedly demonstrated performance limitations of NGS laboratory-developed tests, including discrepancies with a US Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic. The SPOT/Dx pilot methods differ from those used in proficiency testing (PT) programs. Objective.-- To reanalyze SPOT/Dx pilot data using PT program methods and compare to PT program data.Also see p. 136. Design.-- The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Molecular Oncology Committee reanalyzed SPOT/Dx pilot data applying PT program methods, adjusting for confounding conditions, and compared them to CAP NGS PT program performance (2019-2022). Results.-- Overall detection rates of KRAS and NRAS single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and multinucleotide variants (MNVs) by SPOT/Dx pilot laboratories were 96.8% (716 of 740) and 81.1% (129 of 159), respectively. In CAP PT programs, the overall detection rates for the same SNVs and MNVs were 97.2% (2671 of 2748) and 91.8% (1853 of 2019), respectively. In 2022, the overall detection rate for 5 KRAS and NRAS MNVs in CAP PT programs was 97.3% (1161 of 1193). Conclusions.-- CAP PT program data demonstrate that laboratories consistently have high detection rates for KRAS and NRAS variants. The SPOT/Dx pilot has multiple design and analytic differences with established PT programs. Reanalyzed pilot data that adjust for confounding conditions demonstrate that laboratories proficiently detect SNVs and less successfully detect rare to never-observed MNVs. The SPOT/Dx pilot results are not generalizable to all molecular oncology testing and should not be used to market products or change policy affecting all molecular oncology testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--Recurrent epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are seen in a subset of pulmonary adenocarcinomas. These mutations are targeted by EGFR inhibitors and are a biomarker for response to EGFR inhibitor therapies. Initial data have indicated an increased frequency of activating EGFR mutations in nonsmoking Asian females. However, there are very few studies of global scope that address the question of mutation distribution across the population of lung cancer. Objective.--To determine the frequency of EGFR mutations in exons 18 through 21 detected in clinical laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists proficiency testing program for EGFR in calendar year 2013. Design.--We reviewed the surveys from 170 clinical laboratories from 20 countries that participated in the College of American Pathologists EGFR proficiency testing program. The proficiency testing includes questions regarding the total numbers of tests performed at each common mutation site, including both activating and resistance mutations, and their frequency. Countries were grouped into regional groups in order to assess frequency of mutation by type, and to indirectly assess ethnic differences in mutation frequencies. Results.--Among the treatment-sensitive activating mutations, the most common are exon 19 mutations (n = 10 802 of 136 533 cases; 7.9% of total cases tested) and the exon 21 L858R mutation (n = 10 351 of 136 533 cases; 7.6% of total cases tested) and the least common are exon 20 mutations (n = 466 of 136 533 cases; 0.3% of total cases tested). The T790M mutation in exon 20 is the more common resistance mutation (n = 1010 of 136 533 cases; 0.7% of all cases tested). The highest activating mutation frequency is seen in southern Asia (n = 4260 of 9337 cases; 46%) and the lowest activating mutation frequencies are in South and North America (n = 113 of 1439 cases and 7926 of 86 654 cases; 8% and 9%, respectively). Conclusions.--Our data confirm that activating EGFR mutations are more common in southern Asia and that the distribution of activating EGFR mutations varies significantly across the regions. Similarly, the frequency and distribution of resistance mutations also show significant variation when comparing southern Asia with other regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--The 2017 Association for Molecular Pathology/ American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (CAP) tier classification guideline provides a framework to standardize interpretation and reporting of somatic variants. Objective.--To evaluate the adoption and performance of the 2017 guideline among laboratories performing somatic next-generation sequencing (NGS). Design.--A survey was distributed to laboratories participating in NGS CAP proficiency testing for solid tumors (NGSST) and hematologic malignancies (NGSHM). Results.--Worldwide, 64.4% (152 of 236) of NGSST and 66.4% (87 of 131) of NGSHM participants used tier classification systems, of which the 2017 guideline was used by 84.9% (129 of 152) of NGSST and 73.6% (64 of 87) of NGSHM participants. The 2017 guideline was modified by 24.4% (30 of 123) of NGSST and 21.7% (13 of 60) of NGSHM laboratories. Laboratories implementing the 2017 guideline were satisfied or very satisfied (74.2% [89 of 120] NGSST and 69.5% [41 of 59] NGSHM), and the impression of tier classification reproducibility was high (mean of 3.9 [NGSST] and 3.6 [NGSHM] on a 5-point scale). Of nonusers, 35.2%(38 of 108) of NGSST and 39.4% (26 of 66) of NGSHM laboratories were planning implementation. For future guideline revisions, respondents favored including variants to monitor disease (63.9% [78 of 122] NGSST, 80.0% [48 of 60] NGSHM) and germline variants (55.3% [63 of 114] NGSST, 75.0% [45 of 60] NGSHM). Additional subtiers were not favored by academic laboratories compared to nonacademic laboratories (P < .001 NGSST and P = .02 NGSHM). Conclusions.--The 2017 guideline has been implemented by more than 50.0% of CAP laboratories. While most laboratories using the 2017 guideline report satisfaction, thoughtful guideline modifications may further enhance the quality, reproducibility, and clinical utility of the 2017 guideline for tiered somatic variant classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* Context.--With the increasing integration of molecular alterations into the evaluation of hematologic malignancies (HM), somatic mutation profiling by next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become a common clinical testing strategy. Limited data are available about the characteristics of these assays. Objective.--To describe assay characteristics, specimen requirements, and reporting practices for NGS-based HM testing using College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data. Design.--The College of American Pathologists NGS Hematologic Malignancies Survey (NGSHM) results from 78 laboratories were used to determine laboratory practices in NGS-based HM testing. Results.--The majority of laboratories performed tumoronly (88.5% [69 of 78]), targeted sequencing of cancer genes or mutation hotspots (98.7% [77 of 78]); greater than 90% performed testing on fresh bone marrow and peripheral blood. The majority of laboratories reported a 5% lower limit of detection for single-nucleotide variants (73.1% [57 of 78]) and small insertions and deletions (50.6% [39 of 77]). A majority of laboratories used benchtop sequencers and custom enrichment approaches. Conclusions.--This manuscript summarizes the characteristics of clinical NGS-based testing for the detection of somatic variants in HM. These data may be broadly useful to inform laboratory practice and quality management systems, regulation, and oversight of NGS testing, and precision medicine efforts using a data-driven approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* Context.--The performance of laboratory testing has recently come under increased scrutiny as part of important and ongoing debates on regulation and reimbursement. To address this critical issue, this study compares the performance of assay methods, using either commercial kits or assays designed and implemented by single laboratories ("home brews"), including next-generation sequencing methods, on proficiency testing provided by the College of American Pathologists Molecular Oncology Committee. Objective.--To compare the performance of different assay methods on College of American Pathologists proficiency testing for variant analysis of 3 common oncology analytes: BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. Design.--There were 6897 total responses across 35 different proficiency testing samples interrogating 13 different variants as well as wild-type sequences for BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS. Performance was analyzed by test method, kit manufacturer, variants tested, and preanalytic and postanalytic practices. Results.--Of 26 reported commercial kits, 23 achieved greater than 95% accuracy. Laboratory-developed tests with no kit specified demonstrated 96.8% or greater accuracy across all 3 analytes (1123 [96.8%] acceptable of 1160 total responses for BRAF; 848 [97.5%] acceptable of 870 total responses for EGFR; 942 [97.0%] acceptable of 971 total responses for KRAS). Next-generation sequencing platforms (summed across all analytes and 2 platforms) demonstrated 99.4% accuracy for these analytes (165 [99.4%] acceptable of 166 total next-generation sequencing responses). Slight differences in performance were noted among select commercial assays, dependent upon the particular design and specificity of the assay. Wide differences were noted in the lower limits of neoplastic cellularity laboratories accepted for testing. Conclusions.--These data demonstrate the high degree of accuracy and comparable performance across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. However, care must be taken in understanding the diagnostic specificity and reported analytic sensitivity of individual methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--With enormous growth in the field of molecular pathology, the reporting of results gleaned from this testing is essential to guide patient care. Objective.--To examine molecular reports from laboratories participating in proficiency testing for required elements to convey molecular laboratory test results to clinicians and patients. Design.--Molecular laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing program for BRAF mutation analysis were solicited to submit examples of final reports from 2 separate proficiency testing reporting cycles. Reports were reviewed for the presence or absence of relevant components. Results.--A total of 107 evaluable reports were received (57 demonstrating a positive result for the BRAF V600E mutation and 50 negative). Methods for BRAF testing varied, with 95% (102 of 107) of reports adequately describing their assay methods and 87% (93 of 107) of reports adequately describing the target(s) of their assays. Information on the analytic sensitivity of the assay was present in 74% (79 of 107) of reports and 83% (89 of 107) reported at least 1 assay limitation, though only 34% (36 of 107) reported on variants not detected by their assays. Analytic and clinical interpretive comments were included in 99% (106 of 107) and 90% (96 of 107) of reports, respectively. Of participants that perform a laboratory-developed test, 88% (88 of 100) included language addressing the development of the assay. Conclusions.--Laboratories participating in BRAF proficiency testing through the CAP are including most of the required reporting elements to unambiguously convey molecular results. Laboratories should continue to strive to report these results in a concise and comprehensive manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--Genomic sequencing for cancer is offered by commercial for-profit laboratories, independent laboratory networks, and laboratories in academic medical centers and integrated health networks. The variability among the tests has created a complex, confusing environment. Objective.--To address the complexity, the Personalized Health Care (PHC) Committee of the College of American Pathologists proposed the development of a cancer genomics resource list (CGRL). The goal of this resource was to assist the laboratory pathology and clinical oncology communities. Design.--The PHC Committee established a working group in 2012 to address this goal. The group consisted of site-specific experts in cancer genetic sequencing. The group identified current next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based cancer tests and compiled them into a usable resource. The genes were annotated by the working group. The annotation process drew on published knowledge, including public databases and the medical literature. Results.--The compiled list includes NGS panels offered by 19 laboratories or vendors, accompanied by annotations. The list has 611 different genes for which NGS-based mutation testing is offered. Surprisingly, of these 611 genes, 0 genes were listed in every panel, 43 genes were listed in 4 panels, and 54 genes were listed in 3 panels. In addition, tests for 393 genes were offered by only 1 or 2 institutions. Table 1 provides an example of gene mutations offered for breast cancer genomic testing with the annotation as it appears in the CGRL 2014. Conclusions.--The final product, referred to as the Cancer Genomics Resource List 2014, is available as supplemental digital content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: MET amplification activates ERBB3/PI3K/AKT signaling in EGFR mutant lung cancers and causes resistance to EGFR kinase inhibitors. We demonstrate that MET activation by its ligand, HGF, also induces drug resistance, but through GAB1 signaling. Using high-throughput FISH analyses in both cell lines and in patients with lung cancer, we identify subpopulations of cells with MET amplification prior to drug exposure. Surprisingly, HGF accelerates the development of MET amplification both in vitro and in vivo. EGFR kinase inhibitor resistance, due to either MET amplification or autocrine HGF production, was cured in vivo by combined EGFR and MET inhibition. These findings highlight the potential to prospectively identify treatment naive, patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer who will benefit from initial combination therapy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Receptor tyrosine kinase genes were sequenced in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and matched normal tissue. Somatic mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene ECFR were found in 15 of 58 unselected tumors from Japan and 1 of 61 from the United States. Treatment with the EGFR kinase inhibitor gef itinib (Iressa) causes tumor regression in some patients with NSCLC, more frequently in Japan. ECFR mutations were found in additional lung cancer samples from D.S. patients who responded to gefitinib therapy and in a lung adenocarcinoma cell line that was hypersensitive to growth inhibition by gefitinib, but not in gefitinib-insensitive tumors or cell lines. These results suggest that ECFR mutations may predict sensitivity to gefitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]