Current laboratory testing practices for mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing: A survey-based review of current laboratory practices.

Autor:	Austin AL; Department of Pathology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, US., Broaddus RR; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, US., Souers RJ; Biostatistics Department, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, US., Kane ME; Proficiency Testing Department, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, US., Kolhe R; Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, US., Miller DV; EM and Immunostains Laboratory, Intermountain Central Laboratory, Murray, UT, US., Moncur JT; Office of the Director, The Joint Pathology Center, Silver Spring, MD, US., Ramkissoon S; Enterprise Oncology, Labcorp, Durham, NC, US., Tafe LJ; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, US., Trembath DG; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, US., Graham RP; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, US.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	American journal of clinical pathology [Am J Clin Pathol] 2024 Jul 30. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 30.
DOI:	10.1093/ajcp/aqae094
Abstrakt:	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. (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pathology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu