Search

This multi-institutional study was undertaken to evaluate interrater reliability of the 2017 Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines for interpretation and reporting of oncology sequence variants and to assess current practices and perceptions surrounding these guidelines. Fifty-one variants were distributed to 20 participants from 10 institutions for classification using the new guidelines. Agreement was assessed using chance-corrected agreement (Cohen κ). κ was 0.35. To evaluate if data sharing could help resolve disagreements, a summary of variant classifications and additional information about each variant were distributed to all participants. κ improved to 0.7 after the original classifications were revised. Participants were invited to take a web-based survey regarding their perceptions of the guidelines. Only 20% (n = 3) of the survey respondents had prior experience with the guidelines in clinical practice. The main perceived barriers to guideline implementation included the complexity of the guidelines, discordance between clinical actionability and pathobiologic relevance, lack of familiarity with the new classifications, and uncertainty when applying criteria to potential germline variants. This study demonstrates noteworthy discordances between pathologists for variant classification in solid tumors when using the 2017 Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines. These findings highlight potential areas for clarification/refinement before mainstream clinical adoption., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Changes in coding and coverage generate an uncertain reimbursement environment for molecular pathology laboratories. We analyzed our experience with two representative molecular oncology tests: a T-cell receptor (TCR) β rearrangement test and a large (467-gene) cancer next-generation sequencing panel, the Columbia Combined Cancer Panel (CCCP). Before 2013, the TCR β test was coded using stacked current procedural terminology codes and subsequently transitioned to a tier 1 code. CCCP was coded using a combination of tier 1 and 2 codes until 2015, when a new Genomic Sequencing Procedure code was adopted. A decrease in reimbursement of 61% was observed for the TCR β test on moving from stacking to tier 1 codes. No initial increase in total rejection rate was observed, but a subsequent increase in rejection rates in 2015 and 2016 was noted. The CCCP test showed a similar decrease (48%) in reimbursement after adoption of the new Genomic Sequencing Procedure code and was accompanied by a sharp increase in rejection rates both on implementation of the new code and over time. Changes in coding can result in substantial decreases in reimbursement. This may be a barrier to patient access because of the high cost of molecular diagnostics. Revisions to the molecular code set will continue. These findings help laboratories and manufacturers prepare for the financial impact and advocate appropriately., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Genetic mutation is responsible for approximately 10% of breast cancers. The purpose of this study was to compare breast cancer survival and recurrence rates between BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and noncarriers., Methods: Using the Columbia Presbyterian breast cancer database, we collected the tissue blocks of all patients younger than 65 years of age and of Jewish descent. The patients were contacted and the data updated. DNA was extracted from the tissue blocks and tested for the common mutations. The results of the genetic mutation and updated database were anonymized and merged. The survival and recurrence rates were compared between mutation carriers and noncarriers., Results: A total of 739 breast cancer cases in 715 patients were identified. We were able to test 487 patients. We identified 30 BRCA1 and 21 BRCA2 mutation carriers, for an incidence of 10.36%. The median follow-up for the patients tested was 50 months. BRCA1 patients more frequently had estrogen- and progesterone-negative tumors and had a higher incidence of positive nodes. BRCA1 patients received chemotherapy more frequently. The incidence of in situ disease was similar for mutation and non-mutation carriers. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers had a higher incidence of bilateral disease. There was no difference in 5- or 10-year overall and breast cancer-specific survival between mutation and non-mutation carriers., Conclusions: Breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations have a similar outcome as non-mutation carriers.