College of American Pathologists\u27 Laboratory Standards for Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Tests

Context.-The higher throughput and lower per-base cost of next-generation sequencing (NGS) as compared to Sanger sequencing has led to its rapid adoption in clinical testing. The number of laboratories offering NGS-based tests has also grown considerably in the past few years, despite the fact that specific Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988/College of American Pathologists (CAP) laboratory standards had not yet been developed to regulate this technology. Objective.-To develop a checklist for clinical testing using NGS technology that sets standards for the analytic wet bench process and for bioinformatics or \u27\u27 dry bench\u27\u27 analyses. As NGS-based clinical tests are new to diagnostic testing and are of much greater complexity than traditional Sanger sequencing-based tests, there is an urgent need to develop new regulatory standards for laboratories offering these tests. Design.-To develop the necessary regulatory framework for NGS and to facilitate appropriate adoption of this technology for clinical testing, CAP formed a committee in 2011, the NGS Work Group, to deliberate upon the contents to be included in the checklist. Results.-A total of 18 laboratory accreditation checklist requirements for the analytic wet bench process and bioinformatics analysis processes have been included within CAP\u27s molecular pathology checklist (MOL). Conclusions.-This report describes the important issues considered by the CAP committee during the development of the new checklist requirements, which address documentation, validation, quality assurance, confirmatory testing, exception logs, monitoring of upgrades, variant interpretation and reporting, incidental findings, data storage, version traceability, and data transfer confidentiality

Acute Systemic Viral Infection Masquerading as an Infiltrating Lymphoma in an Elderly Patient: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Primary Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection occurs mainly in adolescents and young adults, with more than 90% of adults having serological evidence of past infection. Primary infection in those over the age of 40 is associated with an atypical and often more severe presentation that can lead to more extensive and invasive, and often unnecessary, diagnostic testing. The incidence of severe EBV-related illness in older adults has been observed to be increasing in industrialized nations. The characteristic presentation of infectious mononucleosis (IM) syndrome in elderly patients (age > 65) is not clearly defined in the literature. Here, we describe a case of primary EBV infection in an 80-year-old female and review the literature regarding primary seroconversion in elderly patients

Evaluation of clinical parameters and biomarkers in older, untreated mantle cell lymphoma patients receiving bendamustine-rituximab

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is clinically and biologically heterogeneous. While various prognostic features have been proposed, none currently impact therapy selection, particularly in older patients, for whom treatment is primarily dictated by age and comorbidities. Herein, we undertook a comprehensive comparison of clinicopathological features in a cohort of patients 60 years and older, uniformly treated with bendamustine and rituximab, with a median survival of >8 years. The strongest prognostic indicators in this cohort were a high-risk call by a simplified MCL international prognostic index (s-MIPI) (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.65-6.68 compared to low risk), a high-risk call by MCL35 (HR: 10.34, 95% CI: 2.37-45.20 compared to low risk) and blastoid cytology (HR: 4.21, 95% CR: 1.92-9.22 compared to classic). Patients called high risk by both the s-MIPI and MCL35 had the most dismal prognosis (HR: 11.58, 95% CI: 4.10-32.72), while those with high risk by either had a moderate but clinically relevant prognosis (HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.49-5.82). A robust assay to assess proliferation, such as MCL35, along with stringent guidelines for cytological evaluation of MCL, in combination with MIPI, may be a strong path to risk-stratify older MCL patients in future clinical trials