Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia. It is characterized by the accumulation of CD19+/CD5+ lymphocytes and can have variable outcomes. Richter syndrome (RS) is a ...lethal complication in CLL patients that results in aggressive B-cell lymphomas, and there are no tests to predict its occurrence. Because alterations in microRNA expression can predict the development and progression of several cancers, we investigated whether dysregulation of specific microRNAs can predict RS in CLL patients. Thus, we compared microRNA expression levels in samples from 49 CLL patients who later developed RS with samples from 59 CLL patients who did not. We found that high expression of miR-125a-5p or low expression of miR-34a-5p can predict ∼50% of RS with a false positive rate of ∼9%. We found that CLL patients predicted to develop RS show either an increase of miR-125a-5p expression (∼20-fold) or a decrease of miR-34a-5p expression (∼21-fold) compared with CLL patients that are not predicted to develop RS. Thus, miR-125a-5p and miR-34a-5p can be valuable predictor markers of RS and have the potential to provide physicians with information that can indicate the best therapeutic strategy for CLL patients.
•High expression of miR-125a-5p or low expression of miR-34a-5p can predict ∼50% of RS with a false positive rate of ∼9%.•miR-125a-5p and miR-34a-5p can be valuable markers to predict RS development in CLL patients.
Display omitted
BackgroundTumor mutation burden (TMB) is a biomarker frequently reported by clinical laboratories, which is derived by quantifying of the number of single nucleotide or indel variants (mutations) ...identified by next-generation sequencing of tumors. TMB values can inform prognosis or predict the response of a patient’s tumor to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Methods for the calculation of TMB are not standardized between laboratories, with significant variables being the gene content of the panels sequenced and the inclusion or exclusion of synonymous variants in the calculations. The impact of these methodological differences has not been investigated and the concordance of reported TMB values between laboratories is unknown.MethodsSequence variant lists from more than 9000 tumors of various types were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Variant lists were filtered to include only appropriate variant types (ie, non-synonymous only or synonymous and non-synonymous variants) within the genes found in five commonly used targeted solid tumor gene panels as well as an in-house gene panel. Calculated TMB was paired with corresponding overall survival (OS) data of each patient.ResultsRegression analysis indicates high concordance of TMB as derived from the examined panels. TMB derived from panels was consistently and significantly lower than that derived from a whole exome. TMB, as derived from whole exome or the examined panels, showed a significant correlation with OS in the examined data.ConclusionsTMB derived from the examined gene panels was analytically equivalent between panels, but not between panels and whole-exome sequencing. Correlation between TMB and OS is significant if TMB method-specific cut-offs are used. These results suggest that TMB values, as derived from the gene panels examined, are analytically and prognostically equivalent.
Summarize and interpret results from exercises distributed to laboratories offering cell-free (cf) DNA screening for Down syndrome.
The College of American Pathologists distributed three ...patient-derived plasma specimens twice in 2018. Sequencing platforms, test methods, results, and responses to supplemental questions were collected. Results were not graded but discrepancies were identified.
Sixty-five laboratories from six continents enrolled; six provided no results. The most common methodology was shotgun/genome sequencing (39/56, 70%). Overall, 40% of the gestational or maternal age responses were incorrect but 45% of the errors were corrected by the next distribution. Fetal fractions from 54 responding laboratories generally agreed with the intended response. No genotyping errors occurred (40/40 for trisomy 21 and 226/226 for euploid challenges) but 10 additional tests failed (3.6%). All 213 fetal sex calls were correct. Participants reported their clinical text for a Down syndrome screen positive test; 39% were classified as inadequate or misleading.
Patient-derived materials are suitable for all enrolled technologies/methodologies, but collecting material is challenging. Suggested clinical text includes the terms “screen positive” and “screen negative.” Overall, laboratories performed well. Future efforts will focus on potential manufactured samples, clarifying results reporting and including additional chromosome abnormalities.
Next-generation sequencing-based assays are increasingly used in clinical molecular laboratories to detect somatic variants in solid tumors and hematologic malignancies and to detect constitutional ...variants. Proficiency testing data are potential sources of information about challenges in performing these assays.
To examine the most common sources of unacceptable results from the College of American Pathologists Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics, Hematological Malignancies, Solid Tumor, and Germline surveys and provide recommendations on how to avoid these pitfalls and improve performance.
The College of American Pathologists next-generation sequencing somatic and germline proficiency testing survey results from 2016 to 2019 were analyzed to identify the most common causes of unacceptable results.
On somatic and germline proficiency testing surveys, 95.9% (18 815/19 623) and 97.8% (33 890/34 641) of all variants were correctly identified, respectively. The most common causes of unacceptable results related to sequencing were false-negative errors in genomic regions that were difficult to sequence because of high GC content. False-positive errors occurred in the context of homopolymers and pseudogenes. Recurrent errors in variant annotation were seen for dinucleotide and duplication variants and included unacceptable transcript selection and outdated variant nomenclature. A small percentage of preanalytic or postanalytic errors were attributed to specimen swaps and transcription errors.
Laboratories demonstrate overall excellent performance for detecting variants in both somatic and germline proficiency testing surveys. Proficiency testing survey results highlight infrequent, but recurrent, analytic and nonanalytic challenges in performing next- generation sequencing-based assays and point to remedies to help laboratories improve performance.
Context.--Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) technology has shown great promise in both clinical and preclinical models in mediating potent and specific antitumor activity. With the advent of ...US Food and Drug Administration-approved CAR-T therapies for B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, CAR-T therapy is poised to become part of mainstream clinical practice. Objective.--To educate pathologists on CAR-T and chimeric antigen receptor-derived cellular therapy, provide a better understanding of their role in this process, explain important regulatory aspects of CAR-T therapy, and advocate for pathologist involvement in the delivery and monitoring of chimeric antigen receptor-based treatments. Much of the focus of this article addresses US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies; however, more general issues and future perspectives are considered for therapies in development. Design.--A CAR-T workgroup, facilitated by the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee and consisting of pathologists of various backgrounds, was convened to develop a summary guidance paper for the College of American Pathologists Council on Scientific Affairs. Results.--The workgroup identified gaps in pathologists' knowledge of CAR-T therapy, including uncertainty in the role of the clinical laboratory in supporting CAR-T therapy. The workgroup considered these issues and summarized the findings to assist pathologists to become stakeholders in CAR-T therapy administration. Conclusions.--This manuscript serves to both educate pathologists on CAR-T therapy and serve as a point of initial discussions in areas of CAR-T science, clinical therapy, and regulatory issues as CAR-T therapies continue to be introduced into clinical practice. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;145:704-716; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0632-CP
Following publication of the original article 1, the authors reported error on the images/figures used which also resulted in un-sequential order. The updated figures and captions are provided below.
PDF
