Amy L Austin, Russell R Broaddus, Rhona J Souers, Megan E Kane, Ravindra Kolhe, Dylan V Miller, Joel T Moncur, Shakti Ramkissoon, Laura J Tafe, Dimitri G Trembath, Rondell P Graham
{"title":"错配修复缺陷和微卫星不稳定性检测的现行实验室检测方法:基于调查的实验室现行检测方法回顾。","authors":"Amy L Austin, Russell R Broaddus, Rhona J Souers, Megan E Kane, Ravindra Kolhe, Dylan V Miller, Joel T Moncur, Shakti Ramkissoon, Laura J Tafe, Dimitri G Trembath, Rondell P Graham","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqae094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing practices in laboratories using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) MSI/MMR proficiency testing programs prior to the 2022 publication of the MSI/MMR practice guidelines copublished by CAP and the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from supplemental questionnaires provided with the 2020-B MSI/MMR programs to 542 laboratories across different practice settings were reviewed. Questionnaires contained 21 questions regarding the type of testing performed, specimen/tumor types used for testing, and clinical practices for checkpoint blockade therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Domestic laboratories test for MSI/MMR more often than international laboratories (P = .04) and academic hospitals/medical centers test more frequently than nonhospital sites/clinics (P = .03). The most commonly used testing modality is immunohistochemistry, followed by polymerase chain reaction, then next-generation sequencing. Most laboratories (72.6%; 347/478) reported awareness of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with high MSI or MMR-deficient results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results demonstrate the state of MMR and MSI testing in laboratories prior to the publication of the CAP/AMP best practice guidelines, highlighting differences between various laboratory types. The findings indicate the importance of consensus guidelines and provide a baseline for comparison after their implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7506,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical pathology","volume":" ","pages":"60-68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current laboratory testing practices for mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing: A survey-based review of current laboratory practices.\",\"authors\":\"Amy L Austin, Russell R Broaddus, Rhona J Souers, Megan E Kane, Ravindra Kolhe, Dylan V Miller, Joel T Moncur, Shakti Ramkissoon, Laura J Tafe, Dimitri G Trembath, Rondell P Graham\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcp/aqae094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing practices in laboratories using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) MSI/MMR proficiency testing programs prior to the 2022 publication of the MSI/MMR practice guidelines copublished by CAP and the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from supplemental questionnaires provided with the 2020-B MSI/MMR programs to 542 laboratories across different practice settings were reviewed. Questionnaires contained 21 questions regarding the type of testing performed, specimen/tumor types used for testing, and clinical practices for checkpoint blockade therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Domestic laboratories test for MSI/MMR more often than international laboratories (P = .04) and academic hospitals/medical centers test more frequently than nonhospital sites/clinics (P = .03). The most commonly used testing modality is immunohistochemistry, followed by polymerase chain reaction, then next-generation sequencing. Most laboratories (72.6%; 347/478) reported awareness of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with high MSI or MMR-deficient results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results demonstrate the state of MMR and MSI testing in laboratories prior to the publication of the CAP/AMP best practice guidelines, highlighting differences between various laboratory types. The findings indicate the importance of consensus guidelines and provide a baseline for comparison after their implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"60-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae094\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae094","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Current laboratory testing practices for mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing: A survey-based review of current laboratory practices.
Objectives: To describe mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing practices in laboratories using the College of American Pathologists (CAP) MSI/MMR proficiency testing programs prior to the 2022 publication of the MSI/MMR practice guidelines copublished by CAP and the Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP).
Methods: Data from supplemental questionnaires provided with the 2020-B MSI/MMR programs to 542 laboratories across different practice settings were reviewed. Questionnaires contained 21 questions regarding the type of testing performed, specimen/tumor types used for testing, and clinical practices for checkpoint blockade therapy.
Results: Domestic laboratories test for MSI/MMR more often than international laboratories (P = .04) and academic hospitals/medical centers test more frequently than nonhospital sites/clinics (P = .03). The most commonly used testing modality is immunohistochemistry, followed by polymerase chain reaction, then next-generation sequencing. Most laboratories (72.6%; 347/478) reported awareness of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with high MSI or MMR-deficient results.
Conclusions: The results demonstrate the state of MMR and MSI testing in laboratories prior to the publication of the CAP/AMP best practice guidelines, highlighting differences between various laboratory types. The findings indicate the importance of consensus guidelines and provide a baseline for comparison after their implementation.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP) is the official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. It is a leading international journal for publication of articles concerning novel anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine observations on human disease. AJCP emphasizes articles that focus on the application of evolving technologies for the diagnosis and characterization of diseases and conditions, as well as those that have a direct link toward improving patient care.