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.

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.

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.

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.

Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update.

PURPOSE.­: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS.­: Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS.­: Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in >10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥2.0; average HER2 copy number <4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥4.0 and <6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.

Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update.

Purpose To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. Recommendations Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended work-up for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥ 2.0; average HER2 copy number < 4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results. Find additional information 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.

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.