Relevance, Pathogenesis, and Testing Algorithm for Mismatch Repair–Defective Colorectal Carcinomas

Loss-of-function defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR), which manifest as high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI), occur in approximately 15% of all colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). This molecular subset of CRC characterizes patients with better stage-specific prognoses who experience no benefit from 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Most MMR-deficient (dMMR) CRCs are sporadic, but 15% to 20% are due to inherited predisposition (Lynch syndrome). High penetrance of CRCs in germline MMR gene mutation carriers emphasizes the importance of accurate diagnosis of Lynch syndrome carriers. Family-based (Amsterdam), patient/family-based (Bethesda), morphology-based, microsatellite-based, and IHC-based screening criteria do not individually detect all germline mutation carriers. These limitations support the use of multiple concurrent tests and the screening of all patients with newly diagnosed CRC. This approach is resource intensive but would increase detection of inherited and de novo germline mutations to guide family screening. Although CRC prognosis and prediction of 5-fluorouracil response are similar in both the Lynch and sporadic dMMR subgroups, these subgroups differ significantly with regard to the implications for family members. We recommend that new CRCs should be classified into sporadic MMR-proficient, sporadic dMMR, or Lynch dMMR subgroups. The concurrent use of MSI testing, MMR protein IHC, and BRAF c.1799T>A mutation analysis would detect almost all dMMR CRCs, would classify 94% of all new CRCs into these MMR subgroups, and would guide secondary molecular testing of the remainder

Relevance, Pathogenesis, and Testing Algorithm for Mismatch Repair–Defective Colorectal Carcinomas A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology

Loss-of-function defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR), which manifest as high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI), occur in approximately 15% of all colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). This molecular subset of CRC characterizes patients with better stage-specific prognoses who experience no benefit from 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Most MMR-deficient (dMMR) CRCs are sporadic, but 15% to 20% are due to inherited predisposition (Lynch syndrome). High penetrance of CRCs in germline MMR gene mutation carriers emphasizes the importance of accurate diagnosis of Lynch syndrome carriers. Family-based (Amsterdam), patient/family-based (Bethesda), morphology-based, microsatellite-based, and IHC-based screening criteria do not individually detect all germline mutation carriers. These limitations support the use of multiple concurrent tests and the screening of all patients with newly diagnosed CRC. This approach is resource intensive but would increase detection of inherited and de novo germline mutations to guide family screening. Although CRC prognosis and prediction of 5-fluorouracil response are similar in both the Lynch and sporadic dMMR subgroups, these subgroups differ significantly with regard to the implications for family members. We recommend that new CRCs should be classified into sporadic MMR-proficient, sporadic dMMR, or Lynch dMMR subgroups. The concurrent use of MSI testing, MMR protein IHC, and BRAF c.1799T>A mutation analysis would detect almost all dMMR CRCs, would classify 94% of all new CRCs into these MMR subgroups, and would guide secondary molecular testing of the remainder

An Integrated Process for Co-Developing and Implementing Written and Computable Clinical Practice Guidelines

The goal of this article is to describe an integrated parallel process for the co-development of written and computable clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to accelerate adoption and increase the impact of guideline recommendations in clinical practice. From February 2018 through December 2021, interdisciplinary work groups were formed after an initial Kaizen event and using expert consensus and available literature, produced a 12-phase integrated process (IP). The IP includes activities, resources, and iterative feedback loops for developing, implementing, disseminating, communicating, and evaluating CPGs. The IP incorporates guideline standards and informatics practices and clarifies how informaticians, implementers, health communicators, evaluators, and clinicians can help guideline developers throughout the development and implementation cycle to effectively co-develop written and computable guidelines. More efficient processes are essential to create actionable CPGs, disseminate and communicate recommendations to clinical end users, and evaluate CPG performance. Pilot testing is underway to determine how this IP expedites the implementation of CPGs into clinical practice and improves guideline uptake and health outcomes

Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether electronic health record (EHR) tools improve documentation of pre- and postanalytic care processes for genetic tests ordered by nongeneticists. METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled, pre-/postintervention study of EHR point-of-care tools (informational messages and template report) for three genetic tests. Chart review assessed documentation of genetic testing processes of care, with points assigned for each documented item. Multiple linear and logistic regressions assessed factors associated with documentation. RESULTS: Preimplementation, there were no significant site differences (P > 0.05). Postimplementation, mean documentation scores increased (5.9 (2.1) vs. 5.0 (2.2); P = 0.0001) and records with clinically meaningful documentation increased (score >5: 59 vs. 47%; P = 0.02) at the intervention versus the control site. Pre- and postimplementation, a score >5 was positively associated with abnormal test results (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.8-9.2) and trainee provider (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.6). Postimplementation, a score >5 was also positively associated with intervention site (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.1) and specialty clinic (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.6). There were also significantly fewer tests ordered after implementation (264/100,000 vs. 204/100,000; P = 0.03), with no significant change at the control site (280/100,000 vs. 257/100,000; P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: EHR point-of-care tools improved documentation of genetic testing processes and decreased utilization of genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.Genet Med 19 1, 112-120

Report of an international survey of molecular genetic testing laboratories

Objective: To collect data on the practices of molecular genetic testing (MGT) laboratories for the development of national and international policies for quality assurance (QA). Methods: A web-based survey of MGT laboratory directors (n = 827; response rate 63%) in 18 countries on 3 continents. QA and reporting indices were developed and calculated for each responding laboratory. Results: Laboratory setting varied among and within countries, as did qualifications of the directors. Respondents in every country indicated that their laboratory receives specimens from outside their national borders (64%, n = 529). Pair-wise comparisons of the QA index revealed a significant association with the director having formal training in molecular genetics (p < 0.005), affiliation with a genetics unit (p = 0.003), accreditation of the laboratory (p < 0.005) and participation in proficiency testing (p < 0.005). Research labs had a lower mean report score compared to all other settings (p < 0.05) as did laboratories accessioning <150 samples per year. Conclusion: MGT is provided under widely varying conditions and regulatory frameworks. The data provided here may be a useful guide for policy action at both governmental and professional levels