TY - JOUR
T1 - Current laboratory testing practices for mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing
T2 - A survey-based review of current laboratory practices
AU - Austin, Amy L.
AU - Broaddus, Russell R.
AU - Souers, Rhona J.
AU - Kane, Megan E.
AU - Kolhe, Ravindra
AU - Miller, Dylan V.
AU - Moncur, Joel T.
AU - Ramkissoon, Shakti
AU - Tafe, Laura J.
AU - Trembath, Dimitri G.
AU - Graham, Rondell P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s).
PY - 2025/1/1
Y1 - 2025/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - biomarkers
KW - microsatellite instability
KW - mismatch repair deficiency
KW - molecular diagnostic techniques
KW - survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85216879310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ajcp/aqae094
DO - 10.1093/ajcp/aqae094
M3 - Article
C2 - 39078096
AN - SCOPUS:85216879310
SN - 0002-9173
VL - 163
SP - 60
EP - 68
JO - American Journal of Clinical Pathology
JF - American Journal of Clinical Pathology
IS - 1
ER -