Histochemistry in the diagnosis of non-neoplastic gastrointestinal disorders.

The alimentary tract serves as host to a large number of diseases. In the non-neoplastic group of disorders, conventional histochemistry continues to play an important diagnostic role. It is particularly important in recognizing specific infectious diseases, such as Helicobacter gastritis, Whipple disease, intestinal tuberculosis and other forms of mycobacteriosis, malakoplakia, intestinal spirochetosis, fungal enteritides, amebiasis, cryptosporidiosis, isosporiasis, and microsporidiosis. Those conditions and their histochemical properties are discussed in this review, along with the use of histochemistry in the characterization of structural gastrointestinal disorders. The latter include mucosal metaplasias, amyloidosis, glycogenic acanthosis of the esophagus, lymphocytic-collagenous colitis, gastric neuroendocrine hyperplasia, and pill gastritis.

Principles of Analytic Validation of Clinical Immunohistochemistry Assays.

All assays performed in anatomic and clinical pathology laboratories must be validated before they are placed into clinical service. This review summarizes strategies for validation of clinical immunohistochemistry assays, and is chiefly based on the recently released guideline released by The College of American Pathologists.

The Journey to Improve the College of American Pathologists Cancer Biomarker Reporting Protocols.

CONTEXT.­: Biomarker reporting has increasingly become a key component of pathology reporting, providing diagnostic, prognostic, and actionable therapeutic data for patient care. OBJECTIVE.­: To expand and improve the College of American Pathologists (CAP) biomarker protocols. DESIGN.­: We surveyed CAP members to better understand the limitations they experienced when reporting cancer biomarker results. A Biomarker Workgroup reviewed the survey results and developed a strategy to improve and standardize biomarker reporting. Drafts of new and revised biomarker protocols were reviewed in both print and electronic template formats during interactive webinars presented to the CAP House of Delegates. Feedback was collected, and appropriate revisions were made to finalize the protocols. RESULTS.­: The first phase of the CAP Biomarker Workgroup saw the development of (1) a new stand-alone general Immunohistochemistry Biomarker Protocol that includes reporting for ER (estrogen receptor), PR (progesterone receptor), Ki-67, HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), PD-L1 (programmed death ligand-1), and mismatch repair; (2) a new Head and Neck Biomarker Protocol that updates the prior 2017 paper-only version into an electronic template, adding new diagnostic and theranostic markers; (3) a major revision to the Lung Biomarker Protocol to streamline it and add in pan-cancer markers; and (4) a revision to the Colon and Rectum Biomarker Protocol to add HER2 reporting. CONCLUSIONS.­: We have taken a multipronged approach to improving biomarker reporting in the CAP cancer protocols. We continue to review current biomarker reporting protocols to reduce and eliminate unnecessary methodologic details and update with new markers as needed. The biomarker templates will serve as standardized modular units that can be inserted into cancer-reporting protocols.

Principles of Analytic Validation of Immunohistochemical Assays: Guideline Update.

CONTEXT.­: In 2014, the College of American Pathologists developed an evidence-based guideline to address analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays. Fourteen recommendations were offered. Per the National Academy of Medicine standards for developing trustworthy guidelines, guidelines should be updated when new evidence suggests modifications. OBJECTIVE.­: To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and develop updated evidence-based recommendations. DESIGN.­: The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and update the original guideline recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS.­: Two strong recommendations, 1 conditional recommendation, and 12 good practice statements are offered in this updated guideline. They address analytic validation or verification of predictive and nonpredictive assays, and recommended revalidation procedures following changes in assay conditions. CONCLUSIONS.­: While many of the original guideline statements remain similar, new recommendations address analytic validation of assays with distinct scoring systems, such as programmed death receptor-1 and analytic verification of US Food and Drug Administration approved/cleared assays; more specific guidance is offered for validating immunohistochemistry performed on cytology specimens.

Evaluating the Adoption of Laboratory Practice Guidelines.

CONTEXT.­: To date, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed 17 laboratory practice guidelines (LPGs) including updates. In 2013, the CAP was awarded a 5-year cooperative agreement grant from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase the effectiveness of LPGs. OBJECTIVE.­: To assess the awareness and adoption of 2 CAP LPGs: immunohistochemical (IHC) assay validation and initial workup of acute leukemia. DESIGN.­: Baseline surveys for each LPG were conducted in 2010 and 2015, respectively. To measure the adoption of guideline recommendations and inform future updates, a follow-up study consisting of surveys, telephone interviews, and focus group sessions was conducted in laboratories that indicated they perform IHC testing. A follow-up study for the acute leukemia LPG is planned. RESULTS.­: For the IHC Validation LPG, a total of 1624 survey responses, 40 telephone interviews, and discussions with 5 focus group participants were analyzed. The response rate for the aforementioned 3 modalities was 46%, 13%, and 3%, respectively. All modalities indicated most respondents were aware of the LPG and had adopted most or all of its recommendations. Respondents expressed needs for continued communication, increased specificity, and more prescriptive recommendations when the guideline is updated. CONCLUSIONS.­: While data-driven development of evidence-based LPGs requires significant resources, active data collection to identify gaps and assess adoption contributes to improved laboratory testing practices in support of patient care. The CAP identified sustainable modalities to track metrics and developed multiple tools that should improve guideline development, adoption, and implementation. Of these modalities, written or electronic surveys were the most logistically feasible and had the highest response rate.

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update.

PURPOSE.­: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS.­: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. RECOMMENDATIONS.­: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Analytic Validation of Immunohistochemistry Assays: New Benchmark Data From a Survey of 1085 Laboratories.

CONTEXT: - A cooperative agreement between the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was undertaken to measure laboratories' awareness and implementation of an evidence-based laboratory practice guideline (LPG) on immunohistochemical (IHC) validation practices published in 2014. OBJECTIVE: - To establish new benchmark data on IHC laboratory practices. DESIGN: - A 2015 survey on IHC assay validation practices was sent to laboratories subscribed to specific CAP proficiency testing programs and to additional nonsubscribing laboratories that perform IHC testing. Specific questions were designed to capture laboratory practices not addressed in a 2010 survey. RESULTS: - The analysis was based on responses from 1085 laboratories that perform IHC staining. Ninety-six percent (809 of 844) always documented validation of IHC assays. Sixty percent (648 of 1078) had separate procedures for predictive and nonpredictive markers, 42.7% (220 of 515) had procedures for laboratory-developed tests, 50% (349 of 697) had procedures for testing cytologic specimens, and 46.2% (363 of 785) had procedures for testing decalcified specimens. Minimum case numbers were specified by 85.9% (720 of 838) of laboratories for nonpredictive markers and 76% (584 of 768) for predictive markers. Median concordance requirements were 95% for both types. For initial validation, 75.4% (538 of 714) of laboratories adopted the 20-case minimum for nonpredictive markers and 45.9% (266 of 579) adopted the 40-case minimum for predictive markers as outlined in the 2014 LPG. The most common method for validation was correlation with morphology and expected results. Laboratories also reported which assay changes necessitated revalidation and their minimum case requirements. CONCLUSIONS: - Benchmark data on current IHC validation practices and procedures may help laboratories understand the issues and influence further refinement of LPG recommendations.

Analytic Validation of Immunohistochemical Assays: A Comparison of Laboratory Practices Before and After Introduction of an Evidence-Based Guideline.

CONTEXT: - Laboratories must demonstrate analytic validity before any test can be used clinically, but studies have shown inconsistent practices in immunohistochemical assay validation. OBJECTIVE: - To assess changes in immunohistochemistry analytic validation practices after publication of an evidence-based laboratory practice guideline. DESIGN: - A survey on current immunohistochemistry assay validation practices and on the awareness and adoption of a recently published guideline was sent to subscribers enrolled in one of 3 relevant College of American Pathologists proficiency testing programs and to additional nonsubscribing laboratories that perform immunohistochemical testing. The results were compared with an earlier survey of validation practices. RESULTS: - Analysis was based on responses from 1085 laboratories that perform immunohistochemical staining. Of 1057 responses, 65.4% (691) were aware of the guideline recommendations before this survey was sent and 79.9% (550 of 688) of those have already adopted some or all of the recommendations. Compared with the 2010 survey, a significant number of laboratories now have written validation procedures for both predictive and nonpredictive marker assays and specifications for the minimum numbers of cases needed for validation. There was also significant improvement in compliance with validation requirements, with 99% (100 of 102) having validated their most recently introduced predictive marker assay, compared with 74.9% (326 of 435) in 2010. The difficulty in finding validation cases for rare antigens and resource limitations were cited as the biggest challenges in implementing the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: - Dissemination of the 2014 evidence-based guideline validation practices had a positive impact on laboratory performance; some or all of the recommendations have been adopted by nearly 80% of respondents.

Cancer biomarkers: the role of structured data reporting.

CONTEXT: The College of American Pathologists has been producing cancer protocols since 1986 to aid pathologists in the diagnosis and reporting of cancer cases. Many pathologists use the included cancer case summaries as templates for dictation/data entry into the final pathology report. These summaries are now available in a computer-readable format with structured data elements for interoperability, packaged as "electronic cancer checklists." Most major vendors of anatomic pathology reporting software support this model. OBJECTIVES: To outline the development and advantages of structured electronic cancer reporting using the electronic cancer checklist model, and to describe its extension to cancer biomarkers and other aspects of cancer reporting. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed literature and internal records of the College of American Pathologists. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and usable cancer biomarker data reporting will increasingly depend on initial capture of this information as structured data. This process will support the standardization of data elements and biomarker terminology, enabling the meaningful use of these datasets by pathologists, clinicians, tumor registries, and patients.

Laboratory compliance with the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing guidelines: a 3-year comparison of validation procedures.

CONTEXT: The American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) published guidelines in 2007 regarding testing accuracy, interpretation, and reporting of results for HER2 studies. A 2008 survey identified areas needing improved compliance. OBJECTIVE: To reassess laboratory response to those guidelines following a full accreditation cycle for an updated snapshot of laboratory practices regarding ASCO/CAP guidelines. DESIGN: In 2011, a survey was distributed with the HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) proficiency testing program identical to the 2008 survey. RESULTS: Of the 1150 surveys sent, 977 (85.0%) were returned, comparable to the original survey response in 2008 (757 of 907; 83.5%). New participants submitted 124 of 977 (12.7%) surveys. The median laboratory accession rate was 14,788 cases with 211 HER2 tests performed annually. Testing was validated with fluorescence in situ hybridization in 49.1% (443 of 902) of the laboratories; 26.3% (224 of 853) of the laboratories used another IHC assay. The median number of cases to validate fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 40) and IHC (n = 27) was similar to those in 2008. Ninety-five percent concordance with fluorescence in situ hybridization was achieved by 76.5% (254 of 332) of laboratories for IHC(-) findings and 70.4% (233 of 331) for IHC(+) cases. Ninety-five percent concordance with another IHC assay was achieved by 71.1% (118 of 168) of the laboratories for negative findings and 69.6% (112 of 161) of the laboratories for positive cases. The proportion of laboratories interpreting HER2 IHC using ASCO/CAP guidelines (86.6% [798 of 921] in 2011; 83.8% [605 of 722] in 2008) remains similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although fixation time improvements have been made, assay validation deficiencies still exist. The results of this survey were shared within the CAP, including the Laboratory Accreditation Program and the ASCO/CAP panel revising the HER2 guidelines published in October 2013. The Laboratory Accreditation Program checklist was changed to strengthen HER2 validation practices.

A call to standardize preanalytic data elements for biospecimens.

CONTEXT: Biospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this study. OBJECTIVE: To define the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that should be attached to every collected biospecimen and to provide a complete list of such variables, along with their relative importance, which can vary, depending on downstream use, institutional needs, and information technology capabilities. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a Biorepository Working Group to develop a ranked list of the preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the working group were experts in anatomic, clinical, and molecular pathology; biobanking; medical informatics; and accreditation. Several members had experience with federal government programs, such as the National Cancer Institute's Biospecimens and Biorepository Branch and the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Center Program. Potential preanalytic variables were identified and ranked along with available supporting evidence, definitions, and potential negative effects if the variable was not attached to the biospecimen. Additional national and international stakeholders reviewed the draft manuscript. RESULTS: The ranked listing of 170 preanalytic variables produced can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and/or research biorepository processes. Conclusions.-In our collective experience, it is often difficult to choose which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research. The provided ranked list should aid in the selection of preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.

Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.

CONTEXT: Laboratories must validate all assays before they can be used to test patient specimens, but currently there are no evidence-based guidelines regarding validation of immunohistochemical assays. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for initial analytic validation and revalidation of immunohistochemical assays. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a panel of pathologists and histotechnologists with expertise in immunohistochemistry to develop validation recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address key questions. Electronic searches identified 1463 publications, of which 126 met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Individual publications were graded for quality, and the key question findings for strength of evidence. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories comply with validation and revalidation requirements for immunohistochemical assays. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories must document successful analytic validation of all immunohistochemical tests before applying to patient specimens. The parameters for cases included in validation sets, including number, expression levels, fixative and processing methods, should take into account intended use and should be sufficient to ensure that the test accurately measures the analyte of interest in specimens tested in that laboratory. Recommendations are also provided for confirming assay performance when there are changes in test methods, reagents, or equipment.

Immunohistochemistry validation procedures and practices: a College of American Pathologists survey of 727 laboratories.

CONTEXT: The immunohistochemistry (IHC) laboratory represents a dynamic area of surgical pathology with limited practice guidelines. Studies have shown significant interlaboratory variability in results. OBJECTIVE: To establish baseline parameters for IHC validation procedures and practice, and to assess their feasibility of implementation. DESIGN: In September 2010, a questionnaire was distributed by the College of American Pathologists. It was composed of 32 questions relating to nonpredictive assays as well as non-US Food and Drug Administration (non-FDA)-approved, predictive IHC assays other than human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2/neu). RESULTS: For non-FDA approved, nonpredictive IHC assays, 68% of laboratories had a written validation procedure. Eighty-six percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced nonpredictive antibody. Seventy-five percent used 21 or fewer total cases for the validation and 40% used weakly or focally positive cases. Forty-six percent of respondents had a written procedure for validation procedures for non-FDA approved, predictive marker IHC assays other than HER2/neu. Seventy-five percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced predictive antibody other than HER2/neu. Fewer than half used 25 or more cases for the validation, and 47% used weakly or focally positive cases. CONCLUSION: Some laboratories have written validation procedures that appear to build upon HER2/neu testing guidelines. Some laboratories also manage to validate new antibodies according to those standards; however, many do not. There appears to be a need for further validation guideline development for nonpredictive and non-FDA approved predictive antibody IHC assays.