Highly accurate molecular genetic testing for HFE hereditary hemochromatosis: results from 10 years of blinded proficiency surveys by the College of American Pathologists.

PURPOSE: The College of American Pathologists offers blinded proficiency testing (PT) for laboratories performing HFE genetic tests for hereditary hemochromatosis (common C282Y and H63D variants). This study used 10 years of PT data to determine laboratory performance for HFE analytical genotyping and clinical interpretation. METHODS: Laboratories were graded for accuracy of genotype determination (six possible C282Y/H63D genotypes) and clinical interpretation regarding whether the genotype was likely to have contributed to iron overload in a hypothetical patient. RESULTS: The analytical genotyping error rate was low (0.73%) in 7,663 results (from 257 unique laboratories). Genotyping errors were significantly higher in C282Y heterozygous, H63D homozygous, and C282Y homozygous samples, in non-American laboratories, and in laboratories with lower testing volume. Analytical sensitivity and specificity were >98.5 and >99.5%. The interpretive error rate (4.3%) was higher than the genotyping error rate, with two problematic genotypes (C282Y heterozygous and H63D homozygous) accounting for 77% of total interpretive errors. There was a time-dependent improvement in the interpretation of the clinical significance of HFE genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: HFE molecular genetic testing, performed by non-US Food and Drug Administration-approved laboratory-developed tests, demonstrated excellent accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Clinical interpretations were more heterogeneous, probably owing to the low clinical penetrance of some common HFE genotypes.Genet Med 18 12, 1206-1213.

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.

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.

Implementation, Evolution, and Laboratory Performance of Methods-Based Proficiency Testing for Next-Generation Sequencing Detection of Germline Sequence Variants.

CONTEXT.­: Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays are used for diagnosis of diverse inherited disorders. Limited data are available pertaining to interlaboratory analytical performance of these assays. OBJECTIVE.­: To report on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) NGS Germline Program, which is methods based, and explore the evolution in laboratory testing practices. DESIGN.­: Results from the NGS Germline Program from 2016-2020 were analyzed for interlaboratory analytical performance. Self-reported laboratory testing practices were also evaluated. RESULTS.­: From 2016-2020, a total of 297 laboratories participated in at least 1 program mailing. Of the 289 laboratories that provided information on tests offered, 138 (47.8%) offered only panel testing throughout their enrollment, while 35 (12.1%) offered panels and exome testing, 30 (10.4%) offered only exomes, 9 (3.1%) offered only genomes, and 15 (5.2%) offered panels, exomes, and genomes. The remainder (62 laboratories, 21.4%) changed their test offerings during the 2016-2020 timeframe. Considering each genomic position/interval, the median detection percentage at variant positions across the 2016-2020 mailings ranged from 94.3% to 100%, while at reference positions (no variant detected), the median correct response percentage was 100% across all mailings. When considering performance of individual laboratories, 89.5% (136 of 152) to 98.0% (149 of 152) of laboratories successfully met the detection threshold (≥90% of the variants present), while 94.6% (87 of 92) to 100% (163 of 163) of laboratories met the 95% specificity threshold across mailings. CONCLUSIONS.­: Since the inception of this program, laboratories have consistently performed well. The median sensitivity and specificity of detection of sequence variants included in this program (eg, single nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions) were 100.0%.

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.

Genotype and Phenotype Concordance for Pharmacogenetic Tests Through Proficiency Survey Testing.

CONTEXT.­: As pharmacogenetic testing is incorporated into routine care, it is essential for laboratories to provide accurate and consistent results. Certified laboratories must successfully complete proficiency testing. OBJECTIVES.­: To understand and examine trends in participation and performance of laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing surveys. DESIGN.­: Results from College of American Pathologists pharmacogenetic proficiency testing challenges from 2012 through 2017 were reviewed for concordance with expected genotype and phenotype for each sample (intended responses). RESULTS.­: Laboratories correctly reported results for 96.7% to 100% of samples with no variants. Excluding CYP2D6, laboratories correctly detected and reported variant alleles for each gene (93.7%-99.2% correct). CYP2D6 showed lower concordance, with 83.1% of laboratories reporting the intended genotype across all samples; however, in many cases, the laboratories that did not report a variant allele did not test for that allele. Among laboratories reporting the intended genotype, most successfully reported the intended phenotype (85.9%-99.0%). CONCLUSIONS.­: Although laboratories are generally performing well, there is room for additional improvement, particularly for challenging genes, such as CYP2D6. Efforts in the field of pharmacogenomics to recommend alleles that should be included in clinical tests, identify reference materials, and standardize translation from genotype to phenotype may address some of the remaining variability in results.

Marked Variability in Reported Minimal Residual Disease Lower Level of Detection of 4 Hematolymphoid Neoplasms: A Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Flow Cytometry Proficiency Testing Program.

CONTEXT: Flow cytometry is often applied to minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in hematolymphoid neoplasia. Because flow-based MRD tests are developed in the laboratory, testing methodologies and lower levels of detection (LODs) are laboratory dependent. OBJECTIVES: To broadly survey flow cytometry laboratories about MRD testing in laboratories, if performed, including indications and reported LODs. DESIGN: Voluntary supplemental questions were sent to the 549 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) FL3-A Survey (Flow Cytometry-Immunophenotypic Characterization of Leukemia/Lymphoma) in the spring of 2014. RESULTS: A total of 500 laboratories (91%) responded to the supplemental questions as part of the FL3-A Survey by April 2014; of those 500 laboratories, 167 (33%) currently perform MRD for lymphoblastic leukemia, 118 (24%) for myeloid leukemia, 99 (20%) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 91 (18%) for plasma cell myeloma. Other indications include non-Hodgkin lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia, neuroblastoma, and myelodysplastic syndrome. Most responding laboratories that perform MRD for lymphoblastic leukemia reported an LOD of 0.01%. For myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and plasma cell myeloma, most laboratories indicated an LOD of 0.1%. Less than 3% (15 of 500) of laboratories reported LODs of 0.001% for one or more MRD assays performed. CONCLUSIONS: There is major heterogeneity in the reported LODs of MRD testing performed by laboratories subscribing to the CAP FL3-A Survey. To address that heterogeneity, changes to the Flow Cytometry Checklist for the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program are suggested that will include new requirements that each laboratory (1) document how an MRD assay's LOD is measured, and (2) include the LOD or lower limit of enumeration for flow-based MRD assays in the final diagnostic report.