The morphologic distinction between various serrated polyps of the colorectum may be challenging. The distinction between sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) and traditional serrated adenoma (TSA) may be difficult using currently available criteria mostly based on cytologic characteristics. We have evaluated 66 serrated polyps including 29 SSA, 18 TSA, and 19 hyperplastic polyps for overall shape of the polyps, architectural features of individual crypts, the presence of eosinophilic cytoplasm, size and distribution of the proliferation and maturation zones, as well as Ki-67 and CK20 expression. The extent of the expression of CK20 and Ki-67 could not distinguish between the 3 types of serrated polyps, but the distribution of their expression was very helpful and differences were statistically significant. The distribution of Ki-67+ cells was the single most helpful distinguishing feature of the serrated polyp type (P<0.0001, chi test). Hyperplastic polyps had regular, symmetric, and increased Ki-67 expression. SSA had irregular, asymmetric, and highly variable expression of Ki-67. TSA had low Ki-67 expression, which was limited to "ectopic crypts" and admixed tubular adenomalike areas. In serrated polyps, ectopic crypt formation (ECF) defined by the presence of ectopic crypts with their bases not seated adjacent to the muscularis mucosae was nearly exclusive to TSA and was found in all cases, while the presence of cytologic atypia and eosinophilia of the cytoplasm were characteristic, but not limited to TSA. No evidence of ECF, but nevertheless abnormal distribution of proliferation zone was characteristic of SSA, whereas HP had neither. The presence of the ECF defines TSA in a more rigorous fashion than previous diagnostic criteria and also explains the biologic basis of exuberant protuberant growth associated with TSA and the lack of such growth in SSA. Recognition of this phenomenon may also help in exploring the genetic and molecular basis for differences between SSA and TSA, because these architectural abnormalities may well be a reflection of abnormalities in genetically programmed mucosal development.

Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using “PD-L1” as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations “English” and “human”. 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.

Since 2014, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by various regulatory agencies for the treatment of multiple cancers including melanoma, lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, colorectal cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and other solid tumors. Of these approved drug/disease combinations, a subset also has regulatory agency-approved, commercially available companion/complementary diagnostic assays that were clinically validated using data from their corresponding clinical trials. The objective of this document is to provide evidence-based guidance to assist clinical laboratories in establishing fit-for-purpose PD-L1 biomarker assays that can accurately identify patients with specific tumor types who may respond to specific approved immuno-oncology therapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint. These recommendations are issued as 38 Guideline Statements that address (i) assay development for surgical pathology and cytopathology specimens, (ii) reporting elements, and (iii) quality assurance (including validation/verification, internal quality assurance, and external quality assurance). The intent of this work is to provide recommendations that are relevant to any tumor type, are universally applicable and can be implemented by any clinical immunohistochemistry laboratory performing predictive PD-L1 immunohistochemistry testing.

Background and Aims: In diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC), daily quality control/quality assurance measures (QC/QA) and participation in external quality assurance programmes (EQA) are important in ensuring good laboratory practice and patient care. Bone marrow trephine biopsies (BMTB) have been generally excluded from EQA programmes for diagnostic IHC due to a lack of standards for tissue processing. The European Bone Marrow Working Group (EBMWG) has set up an EBMWG IHC Committee with the task of exploring the plausibility of an EQA programme for BMTB IHC in Europe. Methods: 28 laboratories participated in a web-based anonymous survey; 19 laboratories submitted a total of 109 slides stained for CD34, CD117, CD20, CD3, Ki-67 and a megakaryocyte marker of choice. Results: Eight different fixatives and nine different decalcification methods were used. While 93% of participants believed that they produced excellent results in BMTB IHC, only 4/19 (21%) laboratories did not have any poor results. CD117 and Ki-67, with 53% and 50% poor results, respectively, were the most problematic immunostains, while CD20 was the least problematic, with only 11% poor results. Conclusions: The EBMWG IHC Committee calls for a reduction in the tissue processing methods for BMTB and establishment of an EQA programme for BMTB IHC to help diagnostic IHC laboratories calibrate their tests according to expert recommendations. This is especially necessary in the light of recent introduction of predictive IHC tests in BMTB.

The tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors larotrectinib and entrectinib were recently approved in Canada for the treatment of solid tumours harbouring neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. These NTRK gene fusions are oncogenic drivers found in most tumour types at a low frequency (80%) in a small number of rare tumours (e.g., secretory carcinoma of the salivary gland and of the breast). They are generally mutually exclusive of other common oncogenic drivers. Larotrectinib and entrectinib have demonstrated impressive overall response rates and tolerability in Phase I/II trials in patients with TRK fusion cancer with no other effective treatment options. Given the low frequency of TRK fusion cancer and the heterogeneous molecular testing landscape in Canada, identifying and optimally managing such patients represents a new challenge. We provide a Canadian consensus on when and how to test for NTRK gene fusions and when to consider treatment with a TRK inhibitor. We focus on five tumour types: thyroid carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, soft tissue sarcoma, and salivary gland carcinoma. Based on the probability of the tumour harbouring an NTRK gene fusion, we also suggest a tumour-agnostic consensus for NTRK gene fusion testing and treatment. We recommend considering a TRK inhibitor in all patients with TRK fusion cancer with no other effective treatment options.

In personalized medicine, predictive biomarker testing is the basis for an appropriate choice of therapy for patients with cancer. An important tool for laboratories to ensure accurate results is participation in external quality assurance (EQA) programs. Several providers offer predictive EQA programs for different cancer types, test methods, and sample types. In 2013, a guideline was published on the requirements for organizing high-quality EQA programs in molecular pathology. Now, after six years, steps were taken to further harmonize these EQA programs as an initiative by IQNPath ABSL, an umbrella organization founded by various EQA providers. This revision is based on current knowledge, adds recommendations for programs developed for predictive biomarkers by in situ methodologies (immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization), and emphasized transparency and an evidence-based approach. In addition, this updated version also has the aim to give an overview of current practices from various EQA providers.