The Upgrade Risk of B3 Lesions to (Pre)Invasive Breast Cancer After Diagnosis on Core Needle or Vacuum Assisted Biopsy. A Belgian National Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Flat epithelial atypia (FEA), lobular neoplasia (LN), papillary lesions (PL), radial scar (RS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are lesions of uncertain malignant potential and classified as B3 lesions by the European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Current management is usually wide local excision (WE), surveillance may be sufficient for some. We investigated the upgrade rate of B3 lesions to breast malignancy in a subsequent resection specimen after diagnosis on core needle-or vacuum assisted biopsy (CNB-VAB) in a national population-based series.

METHODS

Using data from the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016, inclusion criteria were new diagnosis of a B3 lesion on CNB or VAB with subsequent histological assessment on a wider excision specimen. Histological agreement between first- and follow-up investigation was analyzed to determine the upgrade risk to ductal adenocarcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer (IC) according to the type of B3 lesion.

RESULTS

Of 1855 diagnosed B3 lesions, 812 were included in this study: 551 after CNB-261 after VAB. After diagnosis on CNB and VAB, we found 19.0% and 14.9% upgrade to malignancy respectively. Upgrade risks after CNB and VAB were: FEA 39.5% and 17.6%; LN 40.5% and 4.3%; PL 10.4% and 12.5%; RS 25.7%and 0.0%; ADH 29.5% and 20.0%.

CONCLUSION

Based on the observed upgrade rate we propose three recommendations: first, resection of ADH, and FEA with WE; second, resection of RS and classical LN with therapeutic VAB and further surveillance when radio-pathological correlation is concordant; third, surveillance of PL.

External Quality Assessment 2.0: The Importance of a Standardized Implementation of TILs for Daily and Trial Practices

New assays are developed regularly to improve health care for patients. It is important to ensure that assays are performed correctly. Therefore, it is advised to participate in training and proficiency (competence assessment) programs. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) might improve the estimates of response to therapy and prognosis. Herewith, we propose a new training and proficiency program in which each pathologist can train and test themselves regarding TILs (and PDL1) scoring.

Interobserver Agreement of PD-L1/SP142 Immunohistochemistry and Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) in Distant Metastases of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Proof-of-Concept Study. A Report on Behalf of the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group

Patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) benefit from treatment with atezolizumab, provided that the tumor contains ≥1% of PD-L1/SP142-positive immune cells. Numbers of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) vary strongly according to the anatomic localization of TNBC metastases. We investigated inter-pathologist agreement in the assessment of PD-L1/SP142 immunohistochemistry and TILs. Ten pathologists evaluated PD-L1/SP142 expression in a proficiency test comprising 28 primary TNBCs, as well as PD-L1/SP142 expression and levels of TILs in 49 distant TNBC metastases with various localizations. Interobserver agreement for PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) was high in the proficiency test: the corresponding scores as percentages showed good agreement with the consensus diagnosis. In TNBC metastases, there was substantial variability in PD-L1 status at the individual patient level. For one in five patients, the chance of treatment was essentially random, with half of the pathologists designating them as positive and half negative. Assessment of PD-L1/SP142 and TILs as percentages in TNBC metastases showed poor and moderate agreement, respectively. Additional training for metastatic TNBC is required to enhance interobserver agreement. Such training, focusing on metastatic specimens, seems worthwhile, since the same pathologists obtained high percentages of concordance (ranging from 93% to 100%) on the PD-L1 status of primary TNBCs.

Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL

The clinical demand for mutation detection within multiple genes from a single tumour sample requires molecular diagnostic laboratories to develop rapid, high-throughput, highly sensitive, accurate and parallel testing within tight budget constraints. To meet this demand, many laboratories employ next-generation sequencing (NGS) based on small amplicons. Building on existing publications and general guidance for the clinical use of NGS and learnings from germline testing, the following guidelines establish consensus standards for somatic diagnostic testing, specifically for identifying and reporting mutations in solid tumours. These guidelines cover the testing strategy, implementation of testing within clinical service, sample requirements, data analysis and reporting of results. In conjunction with appropriate staff training and international standards for laboratory testing, these consensus standards for the use of NGS in molecular pathology of solid tumours will assist laboratories in implementing NGS in clinical services.

RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of "hot-spot" codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Overall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC.

RESULTS

A total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4-50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.

Recommendations for reporting results of diagnostic genetic testing (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic)

Genetic test results can have considerable importance for patients, their parents and more remote family members. Clinical therapy and surveillance, reproductive decisions and genetic diagnostics in family members, including prenatal diagnosis, are based on these results. The genetic test report should therefore provide a clear, concise, accurate, fully interpretative and authoritative answer to the clinical question. The need for harmonizing reporting practice of genetic tests has been recognised by the External Quality Assessment (EQA), providers and laboratories. The ESHG Genetic Services Quality Committee has produced reporting guidelines for the genetic disciplines (biochemical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic). These guidelines give assistance on report content, including the interpretation of results. Selected examples of genetic test reports for all three disciplines are provided in an annexe.

A standardized framework for the validation and verification of clinical molecular genetic tests

The validation and verification of laboratory methods and procedures before their use in clinical testing is essential for providing a safe and useful service to clinicians and patients. This paper outlines the principles of validation and verification in the context of clinical human molecular genetic testing. We describe implementation processes, types of tests and their key validation components, and suggest some relevant statistical approaches that can be used by individual laboratories to ensure that tests are conducted to defined standards.

Best practice guidelines for molecular genetic diagnosis of cystic fibrosis and CFTR-related disorders--updated European recommendations

The increasing number of laboratories offering molecular genetic analysis of the CFTR gene and the growing use of commercial kits strengthen the need for an update of previous best practice guidelines (published in 2000). The importance of organizing regional or national laboratory networks, to provide both primary and comprehensive CFTR mutation screening, is stressed. Current guidelines focus on strategies for dealing with increasingly complex situations of CFTR testing. Diagnostic flow charts now include testing in CFTR-related disorders and in fetal bowel anomalies. Emphasis is also placed on the need to consider ethnic or geographic origins of patients and individuals, on basic principles of risk calculation and on the importance of providing accurate laboratory reports. Finally, classification of CFTR mutations is reviewed, with regard to their relevance to pathogenicity and to genetic counselling.

Quality control in molecular genetic testing

DNA-based testing for genetic diseases has developed from nothing into a principal part of laboratory medicine over the past 15 years. In the rush to bring these powerful new technologies into medical use, issues of quality have not always been given sufficient attention. Efforts are now being made to assess the quality of the output of genetic testing laboratories, and the results show that there is room for improvement.

Recommendations for quality improvement in genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. European Concerted Action on Cystic Fibrosis

These recommendations for quality improvement of cystic fibrosis genetic diagnostic testing provide general guidelines for the molecular genetic testing of cystic fibrosis in patients/individuals. General strategies for testing as well as guidelines for laboratory procedures, internal and external quality assurance, and for reporting the results, including the requirements of minimal services in mutation testing, the nomenclature for describing mutations, procedures to control false-positive amplification reactions and to validate tests, and guidelines to implement a quality system in a molecular diagnostic laboratory are reviewed.

Genetic testing and quality control in diagnostic laboratories

To evaluate the quality of genetic testing for cystic fibrosis, 136, 145 and 159 laboratories participated in a European study in 1996, 1997 and 1998, respectively. We sent six purified DNA samples carrying the more common CFTR mutations with the request to test them using routine protocols. A panel of experts reviewed the results together with the raw data.

Evaluation of CFTR gene mutation testing methods in 136 diagnostic laboratories: report of a large European external quality assessment

Within the framework of the European Concerted Action on Cystic Fibrosis (Biomed-2, BMH4-CT96-0462) a quality assessment was set up for 135 European and one Australian laboratory. Six DNA samples were sent to the various laboratories. These samples carried the following CFTR genotypes: dF508/N1303K; dI507/wild; dF508/G551D; dF508/621 + 1 GtoT; R553X/wild and 1717-1 GtoA/wild. Each laboratory was asked to process the samples as they routinely do, whether they checked for all mutations or not. More than 75% of the laboratories screened for at least six of these mutations. Heteroduplex analysis was the most frequently used primary testing method (47%), in many instances followed by restriction enzyme digestion. Only a minority of the laboratories made use of a commercial CFTR mutation detection kit. On average, 91% of the laboratories correctly typed both alleles of a given DNA sample. However, 35% of the laboratories incorrectly typed one or more alleles from a total of 12 alleles included in the trial. One laboratory even failed to identify four of the different alleles correctly. The genotyping error frequency tended to be lower in laboratories which perform more than 200 CFTR mutation analyses per year. The results of this quality control trial suggest that there are many laboratories (35%) which have a percentage of errors unacceptable in a routine testing setting. The development of a consensus testing strategy for routine diagnostic laboratories and centralised mutation analysis facilities for rare or country-specific mutations in a limited number of expert centres, in combination with regular training sessions and quality assessments, should further improve genotyping.