OBJECTIVE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is an important biomarker in breast cancer (BC). Most BC cases categorised as HER2-negative (HER2-) express low levels of HER2 [immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or IHC 2+/in-situ hybridisation not amplified (ISH-)] and represent a clinically relevant therapeutic category that is amenable to targeted therapy using a recently approved HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugate. A group of practising pathologists, with expertise in breast pathology and BC biomarker testing, outline best practices and guidance for achieving consensus in HER2 IHC scoring for BC.
RESULTS: The authors describe current knowledge and challenges of IHC testing and scoring of HER2-low expressing BC and provide best practices and guidance for accurate identification of BCs expressing low levels of HER2. These expert pathologists propose an algorithm for assessing HER2 expression with validated IHC assays and incorporate the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologist guideline update. The authors also provide guidance on when to seek consensus for HER2 IHC scoring, how to incorporate HER2-low into IHC reporting and present examples of HER2 IHC staining, including challenging cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of BC cases that are negative for HER protein overexpression/gene amplification and the related clinical relevance for targeted therapy highlight the importance of accurate HER2 IHC scoring for optimal treatment selection.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been recognized as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy response in several tumor types. Several laboratories offer TMB testing, but there is significant variation in how TMB is calculated, reported, and interpreted among laboratories. TMB standardization efforts are underway, but no published guidance for TMB validation and reporting is currently available. Recognizing the current challenges of clinical TMB testing, the Association for Molecular Pathology convened a multidisciplinary collaborative working group with representation from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the College of American Pathologists, and the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer to review the laboratory practices surrounding TMB and develop recommendations for the analytical validation and reporting of TMB testing based on survey data, literature review, and expert consensus. These recommendations encompass pre-analytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors of TMB analysis, and they emphasize the relevance of comprehensive methodological descriptions to allow comparability between assays.

BACKGROUND: Liver histopathologic assessment is the accepted surrogate endpoint in NASH trials; however, the scoring of NASH Clinical Research Network (CRN) histologic parameters is limited by intraobserver and interobserver variability. We designed a consensus panel approach to minimize variability when using this scoring system. We assessed agreement between readers, estimated linear weighted kappas between 2 panels, compared them with published pairwise kappa estimates, and addressed how agreement or disagreement might impact the precision and validity of the surrogate efficacy endpoint in NASH trials.
METHODS: Two panels, each comprising 3 liver fellowship-trained pathologists who underwent NASH histology training, independently evaluated scanned whole slide images, scoring fibrosis, inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning, and steatosis from baseline and month 18 biopsies for 100 patients from the precirrhotic NASH study REGENERATE. The consensus score for each parameter was defined as agreement by ≥2 pathologists. If consensus was not reached, all 3 pathologists read the slide jointly to achieve a consensus score.
RESULTS: Between the 2 panels, the consensus was 97%-99% for steatosis, 91%-93% for fibrosis, 88%-92% for hepatocyte ballooning, and 84%-91% for inflammation. Linear weighted kappa scores between panels were similar to published NASH CRN values.
CONCLUSIONS: A panel of 3 trained pathologists independently scoring 4 NASH CRN histology parameters produced high consensus rates. Interpanel kappa values were comparable to NASH CRN metrics, supporting the accuracy and reproducibility of this method. The high concordance for fibrosis scoring was reassuring, as fibrosis is predictive of liver-specific outcomes and all-cause mortality.

暂无摘要。

Diagnosing, selecting therapy for, and monitoring cancer in patients using a minimally invasive blood test represents a significant advance in precision medicine. Wide variability exists in how circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays are developed, validated, and reported in the literature, which hinders clinical adoption and may negatively impact patient care. Standardization is needed for factors affecting ctDNA assay performance and reporting, including pre-analytical variables, analytical considerations, and elements of laboratory assay reporting. The Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee\'s Liquid Biopsy Working Group (LBxWG), including organizational representation from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists, has undertaken a full-text data extraction of 1228 ctDNA publications that describe assays performed in patients with lymphoma and solid tumor malignancies. With an emphasis on clinical assay validation, the LBxWG has developed a set of 13 best practice consensus recommendations for validating, reporting, and publishing clinical ctDNA assays. Recommendations include reporting key pre-analytical considerations and assay performance metrics; this analysis demonstrates these elements are inconsistently included in publications. The LBxWG recommendations are intended to assist clinical laboratories with validating and reporting ctDNA assays and to ensure high-quality data are included in publications. It is expected that these recommendations will need to be updated as the body of literature continues to mature.

The use of social media in pathology has broadly had a positive impact on pathology education and outreach with the frequent posting of high-quality educational material of potential value to trainees, practicing pathologists, and other clinical and laboratory specialists. These posts are also of potential utility and interest to members of the public, who are now more than ever able to gain a window into the field and the role of pathologists in their medical care. There can be a lighthearted aspect to teaching material with the use of food items/analogies, emojis, or other descriptors, which may cross over into the classroom. However, when pathology discussion is taken to a public forum, such as on Twitter (parent company: X Corp.), there is the potential for posted material to be misunderstood, such as when certain emojis or adjectives may be used to describe a human disease state or patient sample. The authors present examples of potential areas of caution, suggestions of how to create a positive impact, and brief guidelines for social media etiquette on #PathTwitter that may apply to other social media platforms widely used by pathologists (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and KiKo). While the points discussed here may be common knowledge and well-known to pathologists who use social media for virtual medical education, the concerns mentioned here (such as using language like \"beautiful\" to describe abnormal mitotic figures and cancer cells) still exist and, henceforth, bear reinforcing.

The goals of the Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee\'s Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Working Group are to define the key attributes of pharmacogenetic alleles recommended for clinical testing and a minimum set of variants that should be included in clinical PGx genotyping assays. This document series provides recommendations for a minimum panel of variant alleles (tier 1) and an extended panel of variant alleles (tier 2) that will aid clinical laboratories when designing assays for PGx testing. The Association for Molecular Pathology PGx Working Group considered functional impact of the variant alleles, allele frequencies in multiethnic populations, the availability of reference materials, and other technical considerations for PGx testing when developing these recommendations. The goal of this Working Group is to promote standardization of PGx gene/allele testing across clinical laboratories. This document will focus on clinical CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 PGx testing that may be applied to all CYP3A4- and CYP3A5-related medications. These recommendations are not to be interpreted as prescriptive but to provide a reference guide.

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice.

暂无摘要。

To update ASCO-College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer. The Panel is aware that a new generation of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) targeting the HER2 protein is active against breast cancers that lack protein overexpression or gene amplification.
An Update Panel conducted a systematic literature review to identify signals for updating recommendations.
The search identified 173 abstracts. Of five potential publications reviewed, none constituted a signal for revising existing recommendations.
The 2018 ASCO-CAP recommendations for HER2 testing are affirmed.
HER2 testing guidelines have focused on identifying HER2 protein overexpression or gene amplification in breast cancer to identify patients for therapies that disrupt HER2 signaling. This update acknowledges a new indication for trastuzumab deruxtecan when HER2 is not overexpressed or amplified but is immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without amplification by in situ hybridization. Clinical trial data on tumors that tested IHC 0 are limited (excluded from DESTINY-Breast04), and evidence is lacking that these cancers behave differently or do not respond similarly to newer HER2 ADCs. Although current data do not support a new IHC 0 versus 1+ prognostic or predictive threshold for response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, this threshold is now relevant because of the trial entry criteria that supported its new regulatory approval. Therefore, while it is premature to create new result categories of HER2 expression (eg, HER2-Low, HER2-Ultra-Low), best practices to distinguish IHC 0 from 1+ are now clinically relevant. This Update affirms prior HER2 reporting recommendations and offers a new HER2 testing reporting comment to highlight the current relevance of IHC 0 versus 1+ results and best practice recommendations to distinguish these often subtle differences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.