A Primer on Gene Editing: What Does It Mean for Pathologists?

CONTEXT.­: Gene editing-based therapies are currently in development in the areas of oncology, inherited disease, and infectious disease. These potentially life-altering therapies are derived from decades of research in both academic and industry settings that developed technologies rooted in principles and products of nature. However, with such technologic developments come many important considerations, including adverse risks, high cost, and ethical questions. OBJECTIVE.­: To educate pathologists about gene editing technologies, inform them of potential indications and risks, outline regulatory and practical issues that could affect hospital-based practice and laboratory testing, and advocate that pathologists need to be present at discussions among industry and regulators pertaining to gene editing-based therapies. DESIGN.­: A Gene Editing Workgroup, facilitated by the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee and consisting of pathologists of various backgrounds, was convened to develop an educational paper to serve as a stimulus to increase pathologist involvement and inquiry in gene editing therapeutic and diagnostic implementation. RESULTS.­: Through multiple discussions and literature review, the workgroup identified potential gaps in pathologists' knowledge of gene editing. Additional topics that could impact pathology and laboratory medicine were also identified and summarized in order to facilitate pathologists as stakeholders in gene editing therapy administration and monitoring and potential use in diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS.­: Gene editing therapy is a complex but potentially transformative area of medicine. This article serves as an introduction to pathologists to assist them in future discussions with colleagues and potentially identify and alter pathology practices that relate to gene editing.

A Primer on Gene Editing.

CONTEXT­: Gene editing-based therapies are currently in development in the areas of oncology, inherited disease, and infectious disease. These potentially life-altering therapies are derived from decades of research in both academic and industry settings that developed technologies rooted in principles and products of nature. However, with such technologic developments come many important considerations, including adverse risks, high cost, and ethical questions. OBJECTIVE­: To educate pathologists about gene editing technologies, inform them of potential indications and risks, outline regulatory and practical issues that could affect hospital-based practice and laboratory testing, and advocate that pathologists need to be present at discussions among industry and regulators pertaining to gene editing-based therapies. DESIGN­: A Gene Editing Workgroup, facilitated by the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee and consisting of pathologists of various backgrounds, was convened to develop an educational paper to serve as a stimulus to increase pathologist involvement and inquiry in gene editing therapeutic and diagnostic implementation. RESULTS­: Through multiple discussions and literature review, the workgroup identified potential gaps in pathologists' knowledge of gene editing. Additional topics that could impact pathology and laboratory medicine were also identified and summarized in order to facilitate pathologists as stakeholders in gene editing therapy administration and monitoring and potential use in diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS­: Gene editing therapy is a complex but potentially transformative area of medicine. This article serves as an introduction to pathologists to assist them in future discussions with colleagues and potentially identify and alter pathology practices that relate to gene editing.

Next-generation sequencing confirms T-cell clonality in a subset of pediatric pityriasis lichenoides.

BACKGROUND: Pityriasis lichenoides (PL) is a papulosquamous disease that affects both adults and children. Previous studies have shown a subset of this entity to have clonal T-cell populations via PCR-based assays. In this study, we sought to implement next-generation sequencing (NGS) as a more sensitive and specific test to examine for T-cell clonality within the pediatric population. METHODS: We identified 18 biopsy specimens from 12 pediatric patients with clinical and histopathologic findings compatible with PL. Patient demographics, clinical features, management, and histopathologic findings were reviewed. All specimens were analyzed for clonality with NGS of T-cell receptor beta (TRB) and gamma (TRG) genes. RESULTS: Of the 12 patients, 9 (75%) had complete resolution of lesions at the time of data collection (mean follow-up 31 months). The remaining three patients significantly improved with methotrexate (with or without acitretin). Interestingly, 7 of 12 patients (58%) and 9 of 17 biopsy specimens (53%) showed evidence of T-cell clonality. Two patients showed matching TRB clones from different anatomic sites. CONCLUSIONS: T-cell clonality is a common finding in PL, probably representing a "reactive clonality" rather than a true lymphoproliferative disorder. Clonality alone cannot be used as a means to distinguish PL from lymphomatoid papulosis or cutaneous lymphoma.

Assessment by Extended-Coverage Next-Generation Sequencing Typing of DPA1 and DPB1 Mismatches in Siblings Matching at HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQ Loci.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant from an HLA matched sibling donor is usually the preferable choice. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for HLA typing in clinical practice provides broader coverage and higher resolution of HLA genes. We evaluated the frequency of DPB1 crossing-over events among patients and potential related donors typed with NGS. From July 2016 to January 2018, 593 patients and 2385 siblings were typed. We evaluated sibling matching status in 546 patients, and 44.8% of these patients had siblings that matched at HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 loci. In 306 patient-HLA matched sibling pairs, we found 6 pairs (1.96%) with 1 DPB1 mismatch, and 5 of these pairs included an additional mismatch in DPA1. No additional mismatches were observed at the low expression loci. Using the T cell epitope algorithm, 4 of these DP mismatches were classified as permissive, 1 as nonpermissive in the host-versus-graft direction, and 1 as nonpermissive in the graft-versus-host direction. The frequency of DPB1 and DPA1 mismatches is low, and their impact in related donor transplants is not well established. Although DP typing in related transplants goes beyond guidelines, it is especially relevant for sensitized patients. NGS-based HLA typing provides full gene coverage, and its use in clinical practice can enable better donor selection.

Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA with a Single-Molecule Sequencing Analysis Validated for Targeted and Immunotherapy Selection.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive genetic cancer profiling using circulating tumor DNA has enabled the detection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-recommended somatic alterations from a single, non-invasive blood draw. However, reliably detecting somatic variants at low variant allele fractions (VAFs) remains a challenge for next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based tests. We have developed the single-molecule sequencing (SMSEQ) platform to address these challenges. METHODS: The OncoLBx assay utilizes the SMSEQ platform to optimize cell-free DNA extraction and library preparation with variant type-specific calling algorithms to improve sensitivity and specificity. OncoLBx is a pan-cancer panel for solid tumors targeting 75 genes and five microsatellite sites analyzing five classes of NCCN-recommended somatic variants: single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions and deletions (indels), copy number variants (CNVs), fusions and microsatellite instability (MSI). Circulating DNA was extracted from plasma, followed by library preparation using SMSEQ. Analytical validation was performed according to recently published American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines and established the limit of detection (LOD), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and reproducibility using 126 gold-standard reference samples, healthy donor samples verified by whole-exome sequencing by an external College of American Pathologists (CAP) reference lab and cell lines with known variants. Results were analyzed using a locus-specific modeling algorithm. RESULTS: We have demonstrated that OncoLBx detects VAFs of ≥ 0.1% for SNVs and indels, ≥ 0.5% for fusions, ≥ 4.5 copies for CNVs and ≥ 2% for MSI, with all variant types having specificity ≥ 99.999%. Diagnostic performance of paired samples displays 80% sensitivity and > 99.999% clinical specificity. Clinical utility and performance were assessed in 416 solid tumor samples. Variants were detected in 79% of samples, for which 87.34% of positive samples had available targeted therapy.