Digital pathology for reporting histopathology samples, including cancer screening samples - definitive evidence from a multisite study.

AIMS: To conduct a definitive multicentre comparison of digital pathology (DP) with light microscopy (LM) for reporting histopathology slides including breast and bowel cancer screening samples. METHODS: A total of 2024 cases (608 breast, 607 GI, 609 skin, 200 renal) were studied, including 207 breast and 250 bowel cancer screening samples. Cases were examined by four pathologists (16 study pathologists across the four speciality groups), using both LM and DP, with the order randomly assigned and 6 weeks between viewings. Reports were compared for clinical management concordance (CMC), meaning identical diagnoses plus differences which do not affect patient management. Percentage CMCs were computed using logistic regression models with crossed random-effects terms for case and pathologist. The obtained percentage CMCs were referenced to 98.3% calculated from previous studies. RESULTS: For all cases LM versus DP comparisons showed the CMC rates were 99.95% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 99.90-99.97] and 98.96 (95% CI = 98.42-99.32) for cancer screening samples. In speciality groups CMC for LM versus DP showed: breast 99.40% (99.06-99.62) overall and 96.27% (94.63-97.43) for cancer screening samples; [gastrointestinal (GI) = 99.96% (99.89-99.99)] overall and 99.93% (99.68-99.98) for bowel cancer screening samples; skin 99.99% (99.92-100.0); renal 99.99% (99.57-100.0). Analysis of clinically significant differences revealed discrepancies in areas where interobserver variability is known to be high, in reads performed with both modalities and without apparent trends to either. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing LM and DP CMC, overall rates exceed the reference 98.3%, providing compelling evidence that pathologists provide equivalent results for both routine and cancer screening samples irrespective of the modality used.

Expanding the Phenotypic Spectrum of Kenny-Caffey Syndrome.

CONTEXT: Kenny-Caffey syndrome (KCS) is a rare hereditary disorder characterized by short stature, hypoparathyroidism, and electrolyte disturbances. KCS1 and KCS2 are caused by pathogenic variants in TBCE and FAM111A, respectively. Clinically the phenotypes are difficult to distinguish. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine and expand the phenotypic spectrum of KCS1 and KCS2 in order to anticipate complications that may arise in these disorders. METHODS: We clinically and genetically analyzed 10 KCS2 patients from 7 families. Because we found unusual phenotypes in our cohort, we performed a systematic review of genetically confirmed KCS cases using PubMed and Scopus. Evaluation by 3 researchers led to the inclusion of 26 papers for KCS1 and 16 for KCS2, totaling 205 patients. Data were extracted following the Cochrane guidelines and assessed by 2 independent researchers. RESULTS: Several patients in our KCS2 cohort presented with intellectual disability (3/10) and chronic kidney disease (6/10), which are not considered common findings in KCS2. Systematic review of all reported KCS cases showed that the phenotypes of KCS1 and KCS2 overlap for postnatal growth retardation (KCS1: 52/52, KCS2: 23/23), low parathyroid hormone levels (121/121, 16/20), electrolyte disturbances (139/139, 24/27), dental abnormalities (47/50, 15/16), ocular abnormalities (57/60, 22/23), and seizures/spasms (103/115, 13/16). Symptoms more prevalent in KCS1 included intellectual disability (74/80, 5/24), whereas in KCS2 bone cortical thickening (1/18, 16/20) and medullary stenosis (7/46, 27/28) were more common. CONCLUSION: Our case series established chronic kidney disease as a new feature of KCS2. In the literature, we found substantial overlap in the phenotypic spectra of KCS1 and KCS2, but identified intellectual disability and the abnormal bone phenotype as the most distinguishing features.

Acceptability of, and Information Needs Regarding, Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) for patients at risk of hereditary cancer syndromes can also identify non-cancer related mutations, as well as variants of unknown significance. This study aimed to determine what benefits and shortcomings patients perceive in relation to NGS, as well as their interest and information preferences in regards to such testing. Eligible patients had previously received inconclusive results from clinical mutation testing for cancer susceptibility. Semi-structured telephone interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis guided by the approach developed by Miles and Huberman. The majority of the 19 participants reported they would be interested in panel/genomic testing. Advantages identified included that it would enable better preparation and allow implementation of individualized preventative strategies, with few disadvantages mentioned. Almost all participants said they would want all results, not just those related to their previous diagnosis. Participants felt that a face-to-face discussion supplemented by an information booklet would be the best way to convey information and achieve informed consent. All participants wanted their information stored and reviewed in accordance with new developments. Although the findings indicate strong interest among these individuals, it seems that the consent process, and the interpretation and communication of results will be areas that will require revision to meet the needs of patients.