Home >> ALL ISSUES >> 2017 Issues >> October 2017

October 2017

‘Split’ decisions in CNS tumor update

October 2017—Classifying central nervous system tumors has recently become both more complex and easier. Surgical pathologists now have guidance that helps them work through the whys, hows, and what-ifs of using molecular studies when making diagnoses. The 2016 WHO classification for CNS tumors, which has been described as a conceptual and practical advance over the previous incarnation, from 2007, should also help them move closer to precision medicine.

Read More »

Revived hopes, fresh challenges with liquid biopsy

October 2017—Until recently, new treatments for stage 4 lung cancer have generally required weighing toxicity against hopes that patients’ average length of survival might be extended by a month or two. But “our expectations are increasing as therapies have improved,” says Geoff Oxnard, MD, thoracic oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Patients and doctors are increasingly expecting targeted therapies with dramatic effect and few side effects.”

Read More »

PD-L1 guideline panels hustle to keep pace with drug advances

October 2017—The expert and advisory panels for the CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline on molecular testing for lung cancer biomarkers started updating the guideline in 2014, and an important but fairly routine revision process may have seemed to lie ahead. Something like sedately stepping onto a moving sidewalk. The key question at that point was quotidian: Have new data emerged to warrant changing the original recommendations?

Read More »

How to spot the savings from a diagnostic team

October 2017—Few pathologists and laboratory professionals would argue with the potential clinical benefit of a diagnostic management team, a group that meets often and provides timely patient-specific reports that synthesize all test results. But getting C-suite executives on board may mean uncovering whether such a team can save the hospital money.

Read More »

Recommendations for investigating liver chemistry abnormalities are unworkable

October 2017—A new guideline on the evaluation of abnormal liver chemistries was published in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG).1 The guideline, developed by the American College of Gastroenterology’s practice parameters committee, is based on three resources, the first of which is a review of published research. The other two resources are notably similar and largely based in expert opinion.

Read More »

DIY or Survey? Identifying interfering substances

October 2017—The interfering substance: Whether it’s in-laws on your doorstep or lipemia in your specimen, it has to be addressed. Ask Michelle K. Zimmerman, MD. These days, Dr. Zimmerman uses the CAP Interfering Substance Survey to detect the presence of hemolysis, lipemia, and icterus in clinical chemistry samples at Indiana University School of Medicine, where she is an assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine. But before her laboratory started using the Survey, how did it handle those interferences?

Read More »

AMP case report: Primary pulmonary adenocarcinoma with an unusual molecular profile of the EGFR gene at initial presentation, October 2017

October 2017—CAP TODAY and the Association for Molecular Pathology have teamed up to bring molecular case reports to CAP TODAY readers. AMP members write the reports using clinical cases from their own practices that show molecular testing’s important role in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. The following report comes from the University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield. If you would like to submit a case report, please send an email to the AMP at amp@amp.org. For more information about the AMP and all previously published case reports, visit www.amp.org.

Read More »

Sigma analysis, role and limitations: development of a QC program for the Beckman Coulter AU5812

October 2017—The challenge for all clinical laboratories is to produce the highest quality in vitro diagnostic results in the most efficient manner. Fortunately, high quality and high efficiency are not mutually exclusive, and the direct correlation between the two is well documented.1,2 As the quality of processes increases, so does process efficiency, which ultimately drives down costs.

Read More »