The ideal reporting of RAS testing in colorectal adenocarcinoma: a pathologists' perspective

Detecting BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer in clinical practice: An Italian experts' position paper

BRAF p.V600E exon 15 hotspot mutation can identify a molecular subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients exhibiting poor prognosis under the conventional chemotherapy regimen. Recently, the chemotherapy-free combination of encorafenib and cetuximab has been approved as the standard of care for previously treated BRAF p.V600E mCRC patients, and genomic testing for BRAF mutations at the time of mCRC diagnosis is currently recommended. In clinical practice, BRAF mutation testing strategies are dramatically impacted by a lack of harmonization and standardization, both in the pre-analytical and analytical phases, which can result in BRAF-mutated patients not receiving the most appropriate therapy at recurrence. This paper proposes nine statements providing practical and concise advice on BRAF mutation testing in CRC, derived from collegial discussion and analysis of a multidisciplinary team of experts, including referral Italian oncologists and pathologists. The statements overview pivotal aspects implied in the detection, treatment and management of BRAF-mutated patients and have been drafted to represent a valuable tool for healthcare professionals committed to mCRC patient management. In addition, they represent a platform for implementing diagnostic-therapeutic workflows that can adapt to the variability of local resources while respecting the high-quality standards required by modern precision oncology.

Reporting of somatic variants in clinical cancer care: recommendations of the Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology

Somatic variant testing through next-generation sequencing (NGS) is well integrated into Swiss molecular pathology laboratories and has become a standard diagnostic method for numerous indications in cancer patient care. Currently, there is a wide variation in reporting practices within our country, and as patients move between different hospitals, it is increasingly necessary to standardize NGS reports to ease their reinterpretation. Additionally, as many different stakeholders-oncologists, hematologists, geneticists, pathologists, and patients-have access to the NGS report, it needs to contain comprehensive and detailed information in order to answer the questions of experts and avoid misinterpretation by non-experts. In 2017, the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics conducted a survey to assess the differences in NGS reporting practices across ten pathology institutes in Switzerland. The survey examined 68 reporting items and identified 48 discrepancies. Based on these findings, the Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology initiated a Delphi method to reach a consensus on a set of recommendations for NGS reporting. Reports should include clinical information about the patient and the diagnosis, technical details about the sample and the test performed, and a list of all clinically relevant variants and variants of uncertain significance. In the absence of a consensus on an actionability scheme, the five-class pathogenicity scheme proposed by the ACMG/AMP guideline must be included in the reports. The Swiss Society of Molecular Pathology recognizes the importance of including clinical actionability in the report and calls on the European community of molecular pathologists and oncologists to reach a consensus on this issue.