Laboratory Considerations for Releasing Next-Generation Sequencing Data to Patients.

CONTEXT.­: Title 45, section 164.524 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that health care systems must provide patient health records upon that patient's request. For complex testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), this raises questions related to what data should be released and the laboratory considerations regarding the release of this data. OBJECTIVE.­: To describe the laboratory implications of releasing different NGS data files and the limitations for the clinical use of different NGS data files. DESIGN.­: The College of American Pathologists workgroup, composed of laboratorians with expertise regarding NGS testing, reviewed pertinent literature, including title 45, section 164.524, and the Health and Human Services "Guidance on Individuals' Right to Access Health Information." RESULT.­: From an accreditation standpoint, validation of NGS includes both the wet bench and data processing (bioinformatics) portions, and appropriately validated laboratory testing is required to ensure quality patient results. NGS testing generates intermediate data files that have not completed the fully validated process but are often kept by the laboratory. These files may be requested by patients, but most patients will not be aware of the test validation process and the limitations of data that have not gone through a fully validated process. CONCLUSIONS.­: Laboratories should encourage patients to receive their health data and to help individuals understand the content, uses, and limitations of laboratory data they have requested or received. NGS data used in a nonvalidated manner should not be used for clinical purposes without confirmation by a clinically validated method.

SPOT/Dx Pilot Reanalysis and College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing for KRAS and NRAS Demonstrate Excellent Laboratory Performance.

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.

General Applicability of Existing College of American Pathologists Accreditation Requirements to Clinical Implementation of Machine Learning-Based Methods in Molecular Oncology Testing.

CONTEXT.­: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) accreditation requirements for clinical laboratory testing help ensure laboratories implement and maintain systems and processes that are associated with quality. Machine learning (ML)-based models share some features of conventional laboratory testing methods. Accreditation requirements that specifically address clinical laboratories' use of ML remain in the early stages of development. OBJECTIVE.­: To identify relevant CAP accreditation requirements that may be applied to the clinical adoption of ML-based molecular oncology assays, and to provide examples of current and emerging ML applications in molecular oncology testing. DESIGN.­: CAP accreditation checklists related to molecular pathology and general laboratory practices (Molecular Pathology, All Common and Laboratory General) were reviewed. Examples of checklist requirements that are generally applicable to validation, revalidation, quality management, infrastructure, and analytical procedures of ML-based molecular oncology assays were summarized. Instances of ML use in molecular oncology testing were assessed from literature review. RESULTS.­: Components of the general CAP accreditation framework that exist for traditional molecular oncology assay validation and maintenance are also relevant for implementing ML-based tests in a clinical laboratory. Current and emerging applications of ML in molecular oncology testing include DNA methylation profiling for central nervous system tumor classification, variant calling, microsatellite instability testing, mutational signature analysis, and variant prediction from histopathology images. CONCLUSIONS.­: Currently, much of the ML activity in molecular oncology is within early clinical implementation. Despite specific considerations that apply to the adoption of ML-based methods, existing CAP requirements can serve as general guidelines for the clinical implementation of ML-based assays in molecular oncology testing.

Companion Diagnostics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward From the Programmed Death Ligand-1 Rollout.

CONTEXT.­: Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic assays play a crucial role as predictive markers in patients being considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, because of a convergence of several factors, including recognition of increased types of cancers susceptible to immunotherapy, increasing numbers of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and release of multiple PD-L1 immunohistochemistry antibodies with differing reporting systems, this complex testing environment has led to significant levels of confusion for pathologists and medical oncologists. OBJECTIVE.­: To identify which processes and procedures have contributed to the current challenges surrounding programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 companion diagnostics and to propose potential remedies to this issue. This is based upon input from key industrial stakeholders in conjunction with the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee. DESIGN.­: A meeting of representatives of pharmaceutical and in vitro diagnostic companies along with the Personalized Health Care Committee reviewed the process of release of the PD-L1 companion diagnostic assays using a modified root cause analysis format. The modified root cause analysis envisioned an ideal circumstance of development and implementation of a companion diagnostic to identify shortcomings in the rollout of the PD-L1 assay and to suggest actions to improve future companion diagnostic assay releases. RESULTS.­: The group recommended improvements to key principles in companion diagnostics implementation related to multi-stakeholder communication, increased regulatory flexibility to incorporate postapproval medical knowledge, improved cross-disciplinary information exchange between medical oncology and pathology societies, and enhanced postmarket training programs. CONCLUSIONS.­: The rapidly changing nature of and increasing complexity associated with companion diagnostics require a fundamental review of processes related to their design, implementation, and oversight.

Clinical Testing for Tumor Cell-Free DNA: College of American Pathologists Proficiency Programs Reveal Practice Trends.

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.

Four-Year Laboratory Performance of the First College of American Pathologists In Silico Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics Proficiency Testing Surveys.

CONTEXT.­: In 2016, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) launched the first next-generation sequencing (NGS) in silico bioinformatics proficiency testing survey to evaluate the performance of clinical laboratory bioinformatics pipelines for the detection of oncology-associated variants at varying allele fractions. This survey focused on 2 commonly used oncology panels, the Illumina TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel and the Thermo Fisher Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot v2 Panel. OBJECTIVE.­: To review the analytical performance of laboratories participating in the CAP NGS bioinformatics (NGSB) surveys, comprising NGSB1 for Illumina users and NGSB2 for Thermo Fisher Ion Torrent users, between 2016 and 2019. DESIGN.­: Responses from 78 laboratories were analyzed for accuracy and associated performance characteristics. RESULTS.­: The analytical sensitivity was 90.0% (1901 of 2112) for laboratories using the Illumina platform and 94.8% (2153 of 2272) for Thermo Fisher Ion Torrent users. Variant type and variant allele fraction were significantly associated with performance. False-negative results were seen mostly for multi-nucleotide variants and variants engineered at variant allele fractions of less than 25%. Analytical specificity for all participating laboratories was 99.8% (9303 of 9320). There was no statistically significant association between deletion-insertion length and detection rate. CONCLUSIONS.­: These results demonstrated high analytical sensitivity and specificity, supporting the feasibility and utility of using in silico mutagenized NGS data sets as a supplemental challenge to CAP surveys for oncology-associated variants based on physical samples. This program demonstrates the opportunity and challenges that can guide future surveys inclusive of customized in silico programs.

RNA Sequencing for Solid Tumor Fusion Gene Detection: Proficiency Testing Practice and Performance Comparison.

CONTEXT.­: Next-generation sequencing-based approaches using RNA have increasingly been used by clinical laboratories for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events. Correspondingly, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has advanced RNA sequencing proficiency testing (PT) to ensure optimal performance of these assays. OBJECTIVE.­: To report on laboratory performance and practices of RNA sequencing for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events using CAP PT data from 8 mailings (2018-A through 2021-B). DESIGN.­: CAP PT RNA sequencing program results from 153 laboratories across 24 proficiency test specimens, interrogating 22 distinct engineered fusion transcripts, were analyzed for correct identification of the fusion event, associated performance variables, and laboratory practices. RESULTS.­: Overall, the 4-year program detection rate (sensitivity) was 95.5% (1486 of 1556 results). False-negative rates were 3.6% (53 of 1463) and 18.3% (17 of 93) for fusion gene and intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events, respectively. Only 19 false-positive results were reported among the 8 PT mailings, and most were likely the result of preanalytical or postanalytical errors. There were no practice characteristics (eg, instrumentation, sequencing method) significantly associated with the fusion detection results. CONCLUSIONS.­: These data reveal a high overall sensitivity and specificity for fusion gene detection by participating laboratories using clinical RNA sequencing. Performance was comparable across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. The fraction of false-negative results for intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events was greater than that for the chimeric fusion genes. False-negative results could not be attributed to any specific practice characteristics.

Getting Your Laboratory on Track With Neurotrophic Receptor Tyrosine Kinase.

CONTEXT.­: Neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusion testing has both diagnostic and therapeutic implications for patient care. With 2 tumor-agnostic US Food and Drug Administration-approved tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors, testing is increasingly used for therapeutic decision making. However, the testing landscape for NTRK fusions is complex, and optimal testing depends on the clinicopathologic scenario. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare different NTRK testing methods to help pathologists understand test features and performance characteristics and make appropriate selections for NTRK fusion detection for their laboratory and individual patient specimens. DATA SOURCES.­: A literature search for NTRK gene fusions and TRK protein was performed, including papers that discussed treatment, testing methodology, and detection or prevalence of fusion-positive cases. CONCLUSIONS.­: As standard of care in some tumor types, next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel testing is a cost effective and reliable way to detect a broad range of NTRK fusions. The design of the panel and use of DNA or RNA will affect performance characteristics. Pan-TRK immunohistochemistry may be used as a rapid, less expensive screen in cases that will not undergo routine NGS testing, or on specimens unsuitable for NGS testing. Fluorescence in situ hybridization may be appropriate for low-tumor-content specimens that are unsuitable for NGS testing. Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction is best suited for monitoring low-level disease of a specific, previously identified target. This information should help laboratories develop a laboratory-specific NTRK testing algorithm that best suits their practice setting and patients' needs.

Current Laboratory Testing Practices for Assessment of ERBB2/HER2 in Endometrial Serous Carcinoma and Colorectal Carcinoma.

CONTEXT.­: Therapy targeted at human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2) was used initially for breast and gastroesophageal carcinoma and has more recently been adopted for endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). There is evidence that predictive biomarker testing algorithms for HER2 must be tumor type specific and that an algorithm validated for one tumor type cannot be applied to another. OBJECTIVE.­: To describe current laboratory practices for HER2 assessment in ESC and CRC. DESIGN.­: We surveyed laboratories participating in the 2021 College of American Pathologists (CAP) HER2 immunohistochemistry proficiency testing program. RESULTS.­: The survey was distributed to 1548 laboratories and returned by 1195, of which 83.5% (998) were in the United States. For ESC, 24.0% (287) of laboratories reported performing in-house testing for HER2 by immunohistochemical staining and/or in situ hybridization; of these, 44.3% (127) performed it reflexively on all cases of ESC. The most common criterion for evaluating HER2 was the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma (69.0%; 194 of 281), whereas only 16.0% (45) of laboratories used guidelines specific to ESC. For CRC, 20.2% (239 of 1185) of laboratories performed in-house HER2 testing, and 82.0% of these (196) did the test only at the clinician's request. A plurality (49.4%; 115 of 233) used gastroesophageal cancer guidelines when scoring CRC, 30.0% (70) used the CRC scoring system from the HERACLES trial, and 16.3% (38) used the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS.­: Laboratories vary in their approach to HER2 testing in ESC and CRC. Most laboratories did not report using tumor type-specific recommendations for HER2 interpretation. The lack of standardization could present a challenge to evidence-based practice when considering targeted therapy for these diseases.

Most Frequently Cited Accreditation Inspection Deficiencies for Clinical Molecular Oncology Testing Laboratories and Opportunities for Improvement.

CONTEXT.­: The College of American Pathologists (CAP), a laboratory accreditation organization with deemed status under the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments of 1988 administers accreditation checklists. Checklists are used by laboratories to ensure regulatory compliance. Peer-level laboratory professionals audit laboratory records during inspections to assess compliance. OBJECTIVE.­: To identify the most frequently cited deficiencies for molecular oncology laboratories undergoing CAP accreditation inspections and describe laboratory improvement opportunities. DESIGN.­: The CAP Molecular Oncology Committee (MOC), which is involved in maintaining the Molecular Pathology checklist, reviewed data and inspector comments associated with the most frequently observed citations related to molecular oncology testing from laboratories inspected by the CAP during a 2-year period (2018-2020). RESULTS.­: Of 422 molecular oncology laboratories that underwent accreditation inspections, 159 (37.7%) were not cited for any molecular oncology-related deficiencies. For the All Common (COM) and Molecular Pathology checklists, there were 364 and 305 deficiencies, corresponding to compliance rates of 98.8% and 99.6%, respectively. The most frequently cited deficiencies are described. The COM checklist deficiencies were associated most often with the analytic testing phase; the MOL checklist deficiencies were more evenly distributed across the preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases of testing. CONCLUSIONS.­: Molecular oncology laboratories demonstrated excellent compliance with practices that support high-quality results for patients and the health care providers who use those test results in patient management. This review includes a critical assessment of opportunities for laboratories to improve compliance and molecular oncology testing quality.

Clinical Laboratory Testing Practices in Diffuse Gliomas Prior to Publication of 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors.

CONTEXT.­: Integration of molecular data into glioma classification supports diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic decision-making; however, testing practices for these informative biomarkers in clinical laboratories remain unclear. OBJECTIVE.­: To examine the prevalence of molecular testing for clinically relevant biomarkers in adult and pediatric gliomas through review of a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey prior to the release of the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. DESIGN.­: College of American Pathologists proficiency testing 2020 survey results from 96 laboratories performing molecular testing for diffuse gliomas were used to determine the use of testing for molecular biomarkers in gliomas. RESULTS.­: The data provide perspective into the testing practices for diffuse gliomas from a broad group of clinical laboratories in 2020. More than 98% of participating laboratories perform testing for glioma biomarkers recognized as diagnostic for specific subtypes, including IDH. More than 60% of laboratories also use molecular markers to differentiate between astrocytic and oligodendroglial lineage tumors, with some laboratories providing more comprehensive analyses, including prognostic biomarkers, such as CDKN2A/B homozygous deletions. Almost all laboratories test for MGMT promoter methylation to identify patients with an increased likelihood of responding to temozolomide. CONCLUSIONS.­: These findings highlight the state of molecular testing in 2020 for the diagnosis and classification of diffuse gliomas at large academic medical centers. The findings show that comprehensive molecular testing is not universal across clinical laboratories and highlight the gaps between laboratory practices in 2020 and the recommendations in the 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors.

Tiered Somatic Variant Classification Adoption Has Increased Worldwide With Some Practice Differences Based on Location and Institutional Setting.

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.

Next-Generation Sequencing Somatic and Germline Assay Troubleshooting Guide Derived From Proficiency Testing Data.

CONTEXT.­: Next-generation sequencing-based assays are increasingly used in clinical molecular laboratories to detect somatic variants in solid tumors and hematologic malignancies and to detect constitutional variants. Proficiency testing data are potential sources of information about challenges in performing these assays. OBJECTIVE.­: To examine the most common sources of unacceptable results from the College of American Pathologists Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics, Hematological Malignancies, Solid Tumor, and Germline surveys and provide recommendations on how to avoid these pitfalls and improve performance. DESIGN.­: The College of American Pathologists next-generation sequencing somatic and germline proficiency testing survey results from 2016 to 2019 were analyzed to identify the most common causes of unacceptable results. RESULTS.­: On somatic and germline proficiency testing surveys, 95.9% (18 815/19 623) and 97.8% (33 890/34 641) of all variants were correctly identified, respectively. The most common causes of unacceptable results related to sequencing were false-negative errors in genomic regions that were difficult to sequence because of high GC content. False-positive errors occurred in the context of homopolymers and pseudogenes. Recurrent errors in variant annotation were seen for dinucleotide and duplication variants and included unacceptable transcript selection and outdated variant nomenclature. A small percentage of preanalytic or postanalytic errors were attributed to specimen swaps and transcription errors. CONCLUSIONS.­: Laboratories demonstrate overall excellent performance for detecting variants in both somatic and germline proficiency testing surveys. Proficiency testing survey results highlight infrequent, but recurrent, analytic and nonanalytic challenges in performing next- generation sequencing-based assays and point to remedies to help laboratories improve performance.

Neoplastic Cellularity Assessment in Molecular Testing.

CONTEXT.­: Neoplastic cellularity assessment has become an essential component of molecular oncology testing; however, there are currently no best practice recommendations or guidelines for this potentially variable step in the testing process. OBJECTIVE.­: To describe the domestic and international practices of neoplastic cellularity assessment and to determine how variations in laboratory practices affect neoplastic cellularity assessment accuracy. DESIGN.­: Data were derived from 57 US and international laboratories that participated in the 2019 College of American Pathologists Neoplastic Cellularity Proficiency Testing Survey (NEO-B 2019). NEO-B 2019 included 29 laboratory practice questions and 5 images exhibiting challenging histologic features. Participants assessed the neoplastic cellularity of hematoxylin-eosin-stained digital images, and results were compared to a criterion standard derived from a manual cell count. RESULTS.­: The survey responses showed variations in the laboratory practices for the assessment of neoplastic cellularity, including the definition of neoplastic cellularity, assessment methodology, counting practices, and quality assurance practices. In some instances, variation in laboratory practice affected neoplastic cellularity assessment performance. CONCLUSIONS.­: The results highlight the need for a consensus definition and improved standardization of the assessment of neoplastic cellularity. We put forth an initial set of best practice recommendations to begin the process of standardizing neoplastic cellularity assessment.

Proceedings From the ASCO/College of American Pathologists Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Predictive Biomarker Summit.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy represents one of the great advances in the field of oncology, highlighted by the Nobel Prize in 2018. Multiple predictive biomarkers for ICI benefit have been proposed. These include assessment of programmed death ligand-1 expression by immunohistochemistry, and determination of mutational genotype (microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency or tumor mutational burden) as a reflection of neoantigen expression. However, deployment of these assays has been challenging for oncologists and pathologists alike. METHODS: To address these issues, ASCO and the College of American Pathologists convened a virtual Predictive Factor Summit from September 14 to 15, 2021. Representatives from the academic community, US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Institutes of Health, health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, and patient advocate organizations presented state-of-the-art predictive factors for ICI, associated problems, and possible solutions. RESULTS: The Summit provided an overview of the challenges and opportunities for improvement in assay execution, interpretation, and clinical applications of programmed death ligand-1, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, and tumor mutational burden-high for ICI therapies, as well as issues related to regulation, reimbursement, and next-generation ICI biomarker development. CONCLUSION: The Summit concluded with a plan to generate a joint ASCO/College of American Pathologists strategy for consideration of future research in each of these areas to improve tumor biomarker tests for ICI therapy.

An Overview of Characteristics of Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Testing for Hematologic Malignancies.

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 tumor-only (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.

Comparative Performance of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus RNA and DNA In Situ Hybridization on College of American Pathologists Proficiency Tests.

CONTEXT.­: Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) in squamous cell carcinoma is important for classification and prognostication. In situ hybridization (ISH) is a commonly used HR-HPV-specific test that targets viral RNA or DNA. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) provides proficiency testing for laboratories performing HR-HPV ISH. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare the analytical performance of RNA- and DNA-based ISH methods on CAP HR-HPV proficiency tests. DESIGN.­: Data from the 2016-2018 CAP HPV ISH proficiency testing surveys were reviewed. These surveys consist of well-characterized samples with known status for HR-HPV, including 1 to 2 copies, 50 to 100 copies, 300 to 500 copies, and no copies of HR-HPV per cell. RESULTS.­: Ninety-five participants submitted 1268 survey results from 20 cores. Overall, RNA ISH had a significantly higher percentage of correct responses than DNA ISH: 97.4% (450 of 462) versus 80.6% (650 of 806) (P < .001). This disparity appears to be the consequence of a superior sensitivity of RNA ISH compared to DNA ISH for samples with 1 to 2 and with 50 to 100 copies of HR-HPV per cell: 95.2% (120 of 126) versus 53.8% (129 of 240), P < .001, respectively, and 100% (89 of 89) versus 76.3% (119 of 156), P < .001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS.­: An assessment of CAP HR-HPV proficiency test performance indicates that RNA ISH shows significantly higher accuracy than DNA ISH owing to higher analytical sensitivity of RNA ISH in tumors with low (1-2 copies per cell) to intermediate (50-100 copies per cell) HR-HPV viral copy numbers. These data support the use of RNA over DNA ISH in clinical laboratories that perform HR-HPV testing as part of their testing algorithms.

Proficiency Testing of Standardized Samples Shows High Interlaboratory Agreement for Clinical Next Generation Sequencing-Based Hematologic Malignancy Assays With Survey Material-Specific Differences in Variant Frequencies.

CONTEXT.­: As laboratories increasingly turn from single-analyte testing in hematologic malignancies to next-generation sequencing-based panel testing, there is a corresponding need for proficiency testing to ensure adequate performance of these next-generation sequencing assays for optimal patient care. OBJECTIVE.­: To report the performance of laboratories on proficiency testing from the first 4 College of American Pathologists Next-Generation Sequencing Hematologic Malignancy surveys. DESIGN.­: College of American Pathologists proficiency testing results for 36 different engineered variants and/or allele fractions as well as a sample with no pathogenic variants were analyzed for accuracy and associated assay performance characteristics. RESULTS.­: The overall sensitivity observed for all variants was 93.5% (2190 of 2341) with 99.8% specificity (22 800 of 22 840). The false-negative rate was 6.5% (151 of 2341), and the largest single cause of these errors was difficulty in identifying variants in the sequence of CEBPA that is rich in cytosines and guanines. False-positive results (0.18%; 40 of 22 840) were most likely the result of preanalytic or postanalytic errors. Interestingly, the variant allele fractions were almost uniformly lower than the engineered fraction (as measured by digital polymerase chain reaction). Extensive troubleshooting identified a multifactorial cause for the low variant allele fractions, a result of an interaction between the linearized nature of the plasmid and the Illumina TruSeq chemistry. CONCLUSIONS.­: Laboratories demonstrated an overall accuracy of 99.2% (24 990 of 25 181) with 99.8% specificity and 93.5% sensitivity when examining 36 clinically relevant somatic single-nucleotide variants with a variant allele fraction of 10% or greater. The data also highlight an issue with artificial linearized plasmids as survey material for next-generation sequencing.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Methods Show Superior or Equivalent Performance to Non-NGS Methods on BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS Proficiency Testing Samples.

CONTEXT.­: There has been a rapid expansion of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays for the detection of somatic variants in solid tumors. However, limited data are available regarding the comparative performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using standardized samples across a large number of laboratories. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare the performance of NGS and non-NGS assays using well-characterized proficiency testing samples provided by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Molecular Oncology Committee. A secondary goal was to compare the use of preanalytic and postanalytic practices. DESIGN.­: A total of 17 343 responses were obtained from participants in the BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, and the Multigene Tumor Panel surveys across 84 different proficiency testing samples interrogating 16 variants and 3 wild-type sequences. Performance and preanalytic/postanalytic practices were analyzed by method. RESULTS.­: While both NGS and non-NGS achieved an acceptable response rate of greater than 95%, the overall performance of NGS methods was significantly better than that of non-NGS methods for the identification of variants in BRAF (overall 97.8% versus 95.6% acceptable responses, P = .001) and EGFR (overall 98.5% versus 97.3%, P = .01) and was similar for KRAS (overall 98.8% and 97.6%, P = .10). There were specific variant differences, but in all discrepant cases, NGS methods outperformed non-NGS methods. NGS laboratories also more consistently used preanalytic and postanalytic practices suggested by the CAP checklist requirements than non-NGS laboratories. CONCLUSIONS.­: The overall analytic performance of both methods was excellent. For specific BRAF and EGFR variants, NGS outperformed non-NGS methods and NGS laboratories report superior adherence to suggested laboratory practices.

Designing and Implementing NGS Tests for Inherited Disorders: A Practical Framework with Step-by-Step Guidance for Clinical Laboratories.

Comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests are increasingly used as first-line tests in the evaluation of patients with suspected heritable disease. Despite major technical simplifications, these assays still pose significant challenges for molecular testing laboratories. Existing professional guidelines and recommendations provide a framework for laboratories implementing such tests, but in-depth, concrete guidance is generally not provided. Consequently, there is variability in how laboratories interpret and subsequently implement these regulatory frameworks. To address the need for more detailed guidance, the College of American Pathologists with representation from the Association for Molecular Pathologists assembled a working group to create a practical resource for clinical laboratories. This initial work is focused on variant detection in the setting of inherited disease and provides structured worksheets that guide the user through the entire life cycle of an NGS test, including design, optimization, validation, and quality management with additional guidance for clinical bioinformatics. This resource is designed to be a living document that is publicly available and will be updated with user and expert feedback as the wet bench and bioinformatic landscapes continue to evolve. It is intended to facilitate the standardization of NGS testing across laboratories and therefore to improve patient care.