Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Current laboratory testing practices for mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing: A survey-based review of current laboratory practices.
Austin, Amy L; Broaddus, Russell R; Souers, Rhona J; Kane, Megan E; Kolhe, Ravindra; Miller, Dylan V; Moncur, Joel T; Ramkissoon, Shakti; Tafe, Laura J; Trembath, Dimitri G; Graham, Rondell P.
Afiliación
  • 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.
Am J Clin Pathol ; 2024 Jul 30.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39078096
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Am J Clin Pathol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Am J Clin Pathol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido