Reducing cytogenetic testing in the era of next generation sequencing: Are we choosing wisely?
choosing wisely
cytogenetics
next generation sequencing
quality improvement
resource utilization
Journal
International journal of laboratory hematology
ISSN: 1751-553X
Titre abrégé: Int J Lab Hematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
revised:
22
09
2021
received:
06
08
2021
accepted:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
30
10
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
29
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In most laboratories, next generation sequencing (NGS) has been added without consideration for redundancy compared to conventional cytogenetics (CG). We tested a streamlined approach to genomic testing in patients with suspected myeloid and plasma cell neoplasms using next generation sequencing ("NGS first") as the primary testing modality and limiting cytogenetics (CG) to samples with morphologic abnormalities in the marrow aspirate. Based on morphologic interpretation of bone marrow aspirate and flow cytometry, samples were triaged into four groups: (a) Samples with dysplasia or excess blasts had both NGS and karyotyping; (b) Samples without excess blasts or dysplasia had NGS only; (c) Repeat samples with previous NGS and/or CG studies were not retested; (d) Samples for suspected myeloma with less than 5% plasma cell had CG testing cancelled. Seven hundred eleven adult bone marrow (BM) samples met the study criteria. The NGS first algorithm eliminated CG testing in 229/303 (75.6%) of patients, primarily by reducing repeat testing. Potential cost avoided was approximately $124 000 per annum. Hematologists overruled the triage comment in only 11/303 (3.6%) cases requesting CG testing for a specific indication. Utilizing NGS as the primary genomic testing modality NGS was feasible and well accepted, reducing over three quarters of all CG requests and improving the financial case for adoption of NGS. Key factors for the success of this study were collaboration of clinical and genomic diagnostic teams in developing the algorithm, rapid turnaround time for BM interpretation for triage, and communication between laboratories.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
333-341Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kohlmann A, Grossmann V, Nadarajah N, Haferlach T. Next-generation sequencing-feasibility and practicality in haematology. Br J Haematol. 2013;160(6):736-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.12194
Northrup V, Maybank A, Carson N, Rahmeh T. The value of next-generation sequencing in the screening and evaluation of hematologic neoplasms in clinical practice. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020;153(5):639-645. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqz203
Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Patnaik MM, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing in myelodysplastic syndromes and prognostic interaction between mutations and IPSS-R. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(12):1311-1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24901
Levy MA, Santos S, Kerkhof J, et al. Implementation of an NGS-based sequencing and gene fusion panel for clinical screening of patients with suspected hematologic malignancies. Eur J Haematol. 2019;103:178-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13272
Kawata E, Lazo-Langner A, Xenocostas A, et al. Clinical value of next-generation sequencing compared to cytogenetics in patients with suspected myelodysplastic syndrome. Br J Haematol. 2020;192(4):729-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16891
Haferlach T, Nagata Y, Grossmann V, et al. Landscape of genetic lesions in 944 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2014;28(2):241-247. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.336
Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Malcovati L, et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2013;122(22):3616-3627. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-08-518886
Duncavage EJ, Schroeder MC, O'Laughlin M, et al. Genome sequencing as an alternative to cytogenetic analysis in myeloid cancers. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(10):924-935. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2024534
Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for MDS. Blood. 2012;120(12):2454-2465. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-03-420489
Naqvi K, Jabbour E, Bueso-Ramos C, et al. Implications of discrepancy in morphologic diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome between referral and tertiary care centers. Blood. 2011;118(17):4690-4693. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-03-342642
Font P, Loscertales J, Benavente C, et al. Inter-observer variance with the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) following the 2008 WHO classification. Ann Hematol. 2013;92(1):19-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-012-1565-4
Matsuda A, Kawabata H, Tohyama K, et al. Interobserver concordance of assessments of dysplasia and blast counts for the diagnosis of patients with cytopenia: from the Japanese central review study. Leuk Res. 2018;74:137-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2018.06.003
Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391-2405. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544
Rack KA, van den Berg E, Haferlach C, et al. European recommendations and quality assurance for cytogenomic analysis of haematological neoplasms. Leukemia. 2019;33(8):1851-1867. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-019-0378-z
McGowan-Jordan J, Simons A, Schmid M (eds.) ISCN 2016: An International System for Human Cytogenomic Nomenclature (2016). S Karger Ag; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1159/isbn.978-3-318-06861-0
Orszag PR, Ellis P. The challenge of rising health care costs-a view from the congressional budget office. N Engl J Med. 2016;357(18):1401-1403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1602009
Chernew ME, Baicker K, Hsu J. The specter of financial armageddon-health care and federal debt in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1166-1168. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1002873
Chernew ME, Hirth RA, Cutler DM. Research update: increased spending on health care: long-term implications for the nation. Health Aff. 2009;28(5):1253-1255. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.1253
Fey MF. The costs of care in haematological cancers: health economic issues. Hematol Oncol. 2017;35:15-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.2394
Song Z, Safran DG, Landon BE, et al. Health care spending and quality in year 1 of the alternative quality contract. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):909-918. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1101416
Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR. The perfect storm of overutilization. J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299(23):2789-2791. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.23.2789
Spaulding TP, Stockton SS, Savona MR. The evolving role of next generation sequencing in myelodysplastic syndromes. Br J Haematol. 2020;188(2):224-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16212
Seensma DP. How I use molecular genetic tests to evaluate patients who have or may have myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2018;132(16):1657-1663. https://ashpublications.org/blood/article-pdf/132/16/1657/1406944/blood860882.pdf
Shumilov E, Flach J, Kohlmann A, et al. Current status and trends in the diagnostics of AML and MDS. Blood Rev. 2018;32(6):508-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2018.04.008
Ogawa S. Genetics of MDS. Blood. 2019;133(10):1049-1059. https://ashpublications.org/blood/article-pdf/133/10/1049/1499668/blood844621.pdf
Shanmugam V, Parnes A, Kalyanaraman R, Morgan EA, Kim AS. Clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing-based screening of peripheral blood in the evaluation of cytopenias. Blood. 2019;134(24):2222-2225. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2019002610
Castellvi-Boada JM, Castels-Oliveres X. Appropriateness of physicians requests of laboratory examinations in primary health care: an over- and under-utilisation study. Clin Chem Lab Med. 1999;37(1):65-69.
Badrick T. Evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clin Biochem Rev. 2013;34:43-46.
Vardiman JW, Arber DA, Orazi A, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391-2406. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544
Gob A, Bhalla A, Aseltine L, Chin-Yee I. Reducing two-unit red cell transfusions on the oncology ward: a choosing wisely initiative. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(2):e000521. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000521
Janssens PMW, Staring W, Winkelman K, Krist G. Active intervention in hospital test request panels pays. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53(5):731-742. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0575
Tseng EK, Hicks LK. Value based care and patient-centered care: divergent or complementary? Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2016;11(4):303-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-016-0333-2
Seegmiller AC, Kim AS, Mosse CA, et al. Optimizing personalized bone marrow testing using an evidence-based, interdisciplinary team approach. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;140(5):643-650. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP8CKE9NEINQFL
Seegmiller AC, Kim AS, Mosse CA, et al. Data-driven iterative refinement of bone marrow testing protocols leads to progressive improvement in cytogenetic and molecular test utilization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146(5):585-593. https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCP/AQW180
Bejar R. CHIP, ICUS, CCUS and other four-letter words. Leukemia. 2017;31(9):1869-1871. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2017.181
Neveling K, Mantere T, Vermeulen S, et al. Next generation cytogenetics: comprehensive assessment of 48 leukemia genomes by genome imaging. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(8):1423-1435. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.06.935742