William R. Sukov

Background: The joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee works to ensure the competency and proficiency of clinical cytogenetic testing laboratories through proficiency testing (PT) programs for various clinical tests offered by such laboratories, including the evaluation of cytogenetic abnormalities in solid tumors. Methods: Review and analyze 25 years (1999–2023) of solid tumor chromosome analysis PT results, utilizing G-banded karyograms. A retrospective review of results from 1999 to 2023 was performed, identifying the challenges addressing solid tumors. The chromosomal abnormalities and overall performance were evaluated. Results: A total of 21 solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 1999–2018. No solid tumor challenges were administered during the period 2019–2023. Challenges consisted of metaphase images and accompanying clinical history for the evaluation of numerical and/or structural abnormalities. All 21 cases reached 80% grading consensus for abnormality recognition. However, five cases (24%) failed to reach consensus for nomenclature reporting by participating laboratories. These cases illustrate errors in reporting chromosomal abnormalities, including whole-arm translocations and those involving sex chromosomes. In addition, they highlight the challenges with differentiation of terminal and interstitial deletions, difficulties in identifying correct breakpoints, and omission of brackets in neoplastic cases. Conclusions: This comprehensive 25-year review demonstrates the exceptional proficiency of cytogenetic laboratories in accurately identifying chromosome abnormalities in solid tumors, while also highlighting the challenges of reporting specific types of chromosomal abnormalities.

Background: The morphologic distinction between thymic carcinomas and thymomas, specifically types B3, A, and occasionally micronodular thymomas with lymphoid stroma (MNTLS) can be challenging, as has also been shown in interobserver reproducibility studies. Since thymic carcinomas have a worse prognosis than thymomas, the diagnosis is important for patient management and treatment. This study aimed to identify a panel of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers that aid in the distinction between thymomas and thymic carcinomas in routine practice. Materials and Method: Thymic carcinomas, type A and B3 thymomas, and MNTLS were identified in an institutional database of thymic epithelial tumors (TET) (1963–2021). IHC was performed using antibodies against TdT, Glut-1, CD5, CD117, BAP1, and mTAP. Percent tumor cell staining was recorded (Glut-1, CD5, CD117); loss of expression (BAP1, mTAP) was considered if essentially all tumor cells were negative; TdT was recorded as thymocytes present or absent (including rare thymocytes). Results: 81 specimens included 44 thymomas (25 type A, 11 type B3, 8 MNTLS) and 37 thymic carcinomas (including 24 squamous cell carcinomas). Using BAP1, mTAP, CD117 (cut-off, 10%), and TdT, 88.9% of thymic carcinomas (95.7% of squamous cell carcinomas) and 77.8% of thymomas could be predicted. Glut-1 expression was not found to be useful in that distinction. All tumors that expressed CD5 in ≥50% of tumor cells also expressed CD117 in ≥10% of tumor cells. In four carcinomas with homozygous deletion of CDKN2A, mTAP expression was lost in two squamous cell carcinomas and in a subset of tumor cells of an adenocarcinoma and was preserved in a lymphoepithelial carcinoma. Conclusion: A panel of immunostains including BAP1, mTAP, CD117 (using a cut-off of 10% tumor cell expression), and TdT can be useful in the distinction between thymomas and thymic carcinomas, with only a minority of cases being inconclusive.