The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting

Trends and Challenges of the Modern Pathology Laboratory for Biopharmaceutical Research Excellence

Pathology, a fundamental discipline that bridges basic scientific discovery to the clinic, is integral to successful drug development. Intrinsically multimodal and multidimensional, anatomic pathology continues to be empowered by advancements in molecular and digital technologies enabling the spatial tissue detection of biomolecules such as genes, transcripts, and proteins. Over the past two decades, breakthroughs in spatial molecular biology technologies and advancements in automation and digitization of laboratory processes have enabled the implementation of higher throughput assays and the generation of extensive molecular data sets from tissue sections in biopharmaceutical research and development research units. It is our goal to provide readers with some rationale, advice, and ideas to help establish a modern molecular pathology laboratory to meet the emerging needs of biopharmaceutical research. This manuscript provides (1) a high-level overview of the current state and future vision for excellence in research pathology practice and (2) shared perspectives on how to optimally leverage the expertise of discovery, toxicologic, and translational pathologists to provide effective spatial, molecular, and digital pathology data to support modern drug discovery. It captures insights from the experiences, challenges, and solutions from pathology laboratories of various biopharmaceutical organizations, including their approaches to troubleshooting and adopting new technologies.

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.

Recommendations for reporting tissue and circulating tumour (ct)DNA next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports.

Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports

Understanding and communicating genomic results can be challenging for families and health professionals without genetic specialty training. Unlike modifying existing laboratory reports, plain language genomic test reports provide an opportunity for patient/family-centered approaches. However, emerging examples generally lack co-design and/or evaluation in real-world settings. Through co-design involving patient groups, plain language experts, educators, and genetic health professionals, plain language genomic test report templates were produced for common test outcomes in rare diseases. Eight plain language genomic test report templates were developed. These reports were piloted and evaluated as part of a national pediatric ultra-rapid genomic testing program. Family and genetic health professional experiences with report layout, content, and use were explored using surveys. Of 154 families and 107 genetic health professionals issued with reports, 51 families and 57 clinicians responded (RR = 33% and 53%, respectively). Most families (82%) found their report helpful in understanding the result. Reports were shared by 63% of families, predominantly with family members (72%), or health professionals (68%). Clinicians (15%) adapted the reports for other settings. Through co-design, plain language genomic test reports implemented in a real-world setting can facilitate patient/family and caregiver understanding and communication of genomic test purpose, outcome, and potential clinical implications.

Optimising tissue acquisition and the molecular testing pathway for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A UK expert consensus statement

Targeted therapy against actionable variants has revolutionised the treatment landscape for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately half of NSCLC adenocarcinomas have an actionable variant, making molecular testing a critical component of the diagnostic process to personalise therapeutic options, optimise clinical outcomes and minimise toxicity. Recently, genomic testing in England has undergone major changes with the introduction of Genomic Laboratory Hubs, designed to consolidate and enhance existing laboratory provision and deliver genomic testing as outlined in the National Genomic Test Directory. Similar changes are ongoing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, multiple challenges exist with current tissue acquisition procedures and the molecular testing pathway in the UK, including quantity and quality of available tissue, adequacy rates, test availability among genomic laboratories, turnaround times, multidisciplinary team communication, and limited guidance and standardisation. The COVID-19 pandemic has added an extra layer of complexity. Herein, we summarise best practice recommendations, based on expert opinion, to overcome existing challenges in the UK. The least invasive biopsy technique should be undertaken with the aim of acquiring the greatest quality and quantity of tissue. Use of sedation should be considered to improve patient experience. Rapid on-site evaluation may also be useful to help guide adequate sampling, and liquid biopsy may be beneficial in some instances. Sample processing should be appropriate to facilitate biomarker testing, in particular, next-generation sequencing for comprehensive genomic information. Steps to optimise tissue utilisation and turnaround times, such as planning of tissue usage, limiting immunohistochemistry, tumour enrichment, and reflex testing at diagnosis, should be implemented. Guidelines for tissue acquisition and sample processing may help to improve sample adequacy to perform downstream testing. Communication among genomic laboratories will help to standardise test availability across England and local auditing could identify further areas for optimisation, including ways to improve turnaround times and adequacy rates.

How to read a next-generation sequencing report—what oncologists need to know

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor cell-derived DNA/RNA to screen for targetable genomic alterations is now widely available and has become part of routine practice in oncology. NGS testing strategies depend on cancer type, disease stage and the impact of results on treatment selection. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has recently published recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with advanced cancer. We complement the ESMO recommendations with a practical review of how oncologists should read and interpret NGS reports. A concise and straightforward NGS report contains details of the tumor sample, the technology used and highlights not only the most important and potentially actionable results, but also other pathogenic alterations detected. Variants of unknown significance should also be listed. Interpretation of NGS reports should be a joint effort between molecular pathologists, tumor biologists and clinicians. Rather than relying and acting on the information provided by the NGS report, oncologists need to obtain a basic level of understanding to read and interpret NGS results. Comprehensive annotated databases are available for clinicians to review the information detailed in the NGS report. Molecular tumor boards do not only stimulate debate and exchange, but may also help to interpret challenging reports and to ensure continuing medical education.

•

NGS is routinely carried out in the diagnostic work-up of several cancer types.

•

In many other malignancies NGS is carried out after exhaustion of standard therapy options.

•

Minimal requirements for the NGS report are detailed in this review.

•

Interpretation of NGS reports can be challenging and require interdisciplinary discussion.

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment

The diagnostic work-up for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires biomarker testing to guide therapy choices. This article is the second of a two-part series. In Part 1, we summarised evidence-based recommendations for obtaining and processing small specimen samples (i.e. pre-analytical steps) from patients with advanced NSCLC. Here, in Part 2, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to analytical steps of biomarker testing (and associated reporting and quality assessment) of small specimen samples in NSCLC. As the number of biomarkers for actionable (genetic) targets and approved targeted therapies continues to increase, simultaneous testing of multiple actionable oncogenic drivers using next-generation sequencing (NGS) becomes imperative, as set forth in European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. This is particularly relevant in advanced NSCLC, where tissue specimens are typically limited and NGS may help avoid tissue exhaustion compared with sequential biomarker testing. Despite guideline recommendations, significant discrepancies in access to NGS persist across Europe, primarily due to reimbursement constraints. The use of increasingly complex testing methods also has implications for the reporting of results. Molecular testing reports should include clinical interpretation with additional commentary on sample adequacy as appropriate. Molecular tumour boards are recommended to facilitate the interpretation of complex genetic information arising from NGS, and to collaboratively determine the optimal treatment for patients with NSCLC. Finally, whichever testing modality is employed, it is essential that adequate internal and external validation and quality control measures are implemented.

Molecular pathology testing for non-small cell lung cancer: an observational study of elements currently present in request forms and result reports and the opinion of different stakeholders

BACKGROUND

For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), targeted therapies are becoming part of the standard treatment. It is of question which information the clinicians provide on test requests and how the laboratories adapt test conclusions to this knowledge and regulations.

METHODS

This study consisted of two components; 1) checking the presence of pre-defined elements (administrative and key for therapy-choice) on completed requests and corresponding reports in Belgian laboratories, both for tissue- and liquid biopsy (LB)-testing and b) opinion analysis from Belgian pathologists/molecular biologists and clinicians during national pathology/oncology meetings.

RESULTS

Data from 4 out of 6 Belgian laboratories with ISO-accreditation for LB-testing were analyzed, of which 75% were university hospitals. On the scored requests (N = 4), 12 out of 19 ISO-required elements were present for tissue and 11 for LB-testing. Especially relevant patient history, such as line of therapy (for LB), tumor histology and the reason for testing were lacking. Similarly, 11 and 9 out of 18 elements were present in the reports (N = 4) for tissue and LB, respectively. Elements that pathologists/molecular biologists (N = 18) were missing on the request were the initial activating mutation, previous therapies, a clinical question and testing-related information. For reporting, an item considered important by both groups is the clinical interpretation of the test result. In addition, clinicians (N = 28) indicated that they also wish to read the percentage of neoplastic cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication flows between the laboratory and the clinician, together with possible pitfalls were identified. Based on the study results, templates for complete requesting and reporting were proposed.

Incidents in Molecular Pathology: Frequency and Causes During Routine Testing

CONTEXT.—

Errors in laboratory medicine could compromise patient safety. Good laboratory practice includes identifying and managing nonconformities in the total test process. Varying error percentages have been described in other fields but are lacking for molecular oncology.

OBJECTIVES.—

To gain insight into incident causes and frequency in the total test process from 8 European institutes routinely performing biomarker tests in non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer.

DESIGN.—

All incidents documented in 2018 were collected from all hospital services for pre-preanalytical entries before the biomarker test, as well as specific incidents for biomarker tests.

RESULTS.—

There were 5185 incidents collected, of which 4363 (84.1%) occurred in the pre-preanalytical phase (all hospital services), 2796 of 4363 (64.1%) related to missing or incorrect request form information. From the other 822 specific incidents, 166 (20.2%) were recorded in the preanalytical phase, 275 (33.5%) in the analytical phase, and 194 (23.6%) in the postanalytical phase, mainly due to incorrect report content. Only 47 of 822 (5.7%) incidents were recorded in the post-postanalytical phase, and 123 (15.0%) in the complete total test process. For 17 of 822 (2.1%) incidents the time point was unknown. Pre-preanalytical incidents were resolved sooner than incidents on the complete process (mean 6 versus 60 days). For 1215 of 5168 (23.5%) incidents with known causes a specific action was undertaken besides documenting them, not limited to accredited institutes.

CONCLUSIONS.—

There was a large variety in the number and extent of documented incidents. Correct and complete information on the request forms and final reports are highly error prone and require additional focus.

Biomarker testing in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL

In personalized medicine, predictive biomarker testing is the basis for an appropriate choice of therapy for patients with cancer. An important tool for laboratories to ensure accurate results is participation in external quality assurance (EQA) programs. Several providers offer predictive EQA programs for different cancer types, test methods, and sample types. In 2013, a guideline was published on the requirements for organizing high-quality EQA programs in molecular pathology. Now, after six years, steps were taken to further harmonize these EQA programs as an initiative by IQNPath ABSL, an umbrella organization founded by various EQA providers. This revision is based on current knowledge, adds recommendations for programs developed for predictive biomarkers by in situ methodologies (immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization), and emphasized transparency and an evidence-based approach. In addition, this updated version also has the aim to give an overview of current practices from various EQA providers.

Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists

Patients and non-specialist healthcare professionals are increasingly expected to understand and interpret the results of genetic or genomic testing. These results are currently reported using a variety of templates, containing different amounts, levels, and layouts of information. We set out to establish a set of recommendations for communicating genetic test results to non-expert readers. We employed a qualitative-descriptive study design with user-centred design principles, including a mixture of in-person semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires with patients, healthcare professionals and the general public. The resulting recommendations and example template include providing at-a-glance comprehension of what the test results mean for the patient; suggested next steps; and details of further information and support. Separation and inclusion of technical methodological details enhances non-specialists' understanding, while retaining important information for specialists and the patients' records. The recommendations address the high-level needs of patients and their non-specialist clinicians when receiving genetic test results. These recommendations provide a solid foundation for the major content and structure of reports, and we recommend further engagement with patients and clinicians to tailor reports to specific types of test and results.

Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend that genetic reports should be clear to nonspecialists, including patients. We investigated the feasibility of creating reports for cystic fibrosis carrier testing through a rapid user-centered design process that built on a previously developed generic template. We evaluated the new reports' communication efficacy and effects on comprehension against comparable reports used in current clinical practice.

METHODS

Thirty participants took part in three rounds of interviews. Usability problems were identified and rectified in each round. One hundred ninety-three participants took part in an evaluation of the resulting reports measuring subjective comprehension, risk probability comprehension, perceived communication efficacy, and other factors, as compared with standard reports.

RESULTS

Participants viewing the user-centered reports rated them as clearer, easier to understand, and more effective at communicating key information than standard reports. Both groups ended up with equivalent knowledge of risk probabilities, although we observed differences in how those probabilities were perceived.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that by starting with a patient-friendly generic report template and modifying it for specific scenarios with a rapid user-centered design process, reports can be produced that are more effective at communicating key information. The resulting reports are now being implemented into clinical care.

International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA

BACKGROUND

Molecular analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is becoming increasingly important in clinical treatment decisions. A pilot External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme for ctDNA analysis was organized by four European EQA providers under the umbrella organization IQN Path, in order to investigate the feasibility of delivering an EQA to assess the detection of clinically relevant variants in plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and to analyze reporting formats.

METHODS

Thirty-two experienced laboratories received 5 samples for EGFR mutation analysis and/or 5 samples for KRAS and NRAS mutation analysis. Samples were artificially manufactured to contain 3 mL of human plasma with 20 ng/mL of fragmented ctDNA and variants at allelic frequencies of 1 and 5%.

RESULTS

The scheme error rate was 20.1%. Higher error rates were observed for RAS testing when compared to EGFR analysis, for allelic frequencies of 1% compared to 5%, and for cases including 2 different variants. The reports over-interpreted wild-type results and frequently failed to comment on the amount of cfDNA extracted.

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot scheme demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a ctDNA EQA scheme and the need for such a scheme due to high error rates in detecting low frequency clinically relevant variants. Recommendations to improve reporting of cfDNA are provided.

External Quality Assessment Identifies Training Needs to Determine the Neoplastic Cell Content for Biomarker Testing

Neoplastic cell content determination is crucial for biomarker testing. It is known that interobserver variation exists, but largescale data are missing about variation in tumor delineation and cell content determination. Results were obtained from the external quality assessment program for metastatic colorectal cancer from the European Society of Pathology (N = 5776 observations). The study included three parts: current practices were surveyed, neoplastic cell content estimations and delineations were retrieved from stained slides, and clinical reports were analyzed. Seventeen of 43 pathologists determined the neoplastic cell content in a tumor-rich area for DNA extraction and took immune cells (n = 37), tumor cell distribution (n = 33), desmoplastic stroma (n = 30), necrosis (n = 29), and mucus (n = 23) into account. The selected area was highly variable, and the average difference between the highest and lowest estimation ranged between 51% and 78% (2011 to 2017). The number of overestimations was alarmingly high in samples containing <30% tumor cells. Of concern is that 33 of 105 laboratories reported a wild-type result in a sample without tumor in 2017. Standardization of neoplastic cell content determination is needed for test outcome interpretation. The authors' data show variation in estimation practices, tumor delineations and estimations, and interpretation problems (n = 226 reports). Further training for selecting the most suitable block and creating clear reports is urgently needed.