International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of Reproducibility in Assessment of Pathologic Response in Resected Lung Cancers After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria. METHODS: An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy.

An analysis of research biopsy core variability from over 5000 prospectively collected core samples.

Factors correlated with biopsy tissue adequacy and the prevalence of within-biopsy variability were evaluated. Totally, 1149 research biopsies were performed on 686 patients from which 5090 cores were assessed. Biopsy cores were reviewed for malignant percentage (estimated percentage of cells in the core that were malignant) and malignant area (estimated area occupied by malignant cells). Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models were used for the analysis. A total of 641 (55.8%) biopsies contained a core with <10% malignant percentage (inadequate core). The chance of an inadequate core was not influenced by core order, though the malignant area decreased with each consecutive core (p < 0.001). Younger age, bone biopsy location, appendiceal tumor pathology, and responding/stable disease prior to biopsy increased the odds of a biopsy containing zero adequate cores. Within-biopsy variability in core adequacy is prevalent and suggests the need for histological tumor quality assessment of each core in order to optimize translational analyses.

Global quantitative assessment of the colorectal polyp burden in familial adenomatous polyposis by using a web-based tool.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measures of the total polyp burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are lacking. Current assessment tools include polyp quantitation in limited-field photographs and qualitative total colorectal polyp burden by video. OBJECTIVE: To develop global quantitative tools of the FAP colorectal adenoma burden. DESIGN: A single-arm, phase II trial. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven patients with FAP. INTERVENTION: Treatment with celecoxib for 6 months, with before-treatment and after-treatment videos posted to an intranet with an interactive site for scoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Global adenoma counts and sizes (grouped into categories: <2 mm, 2-4 mm, and >4 mm) were scored from videos by using a novel Web-based tool. Baseline and end-of-study adenoma burden results were summarized by using 5 models. Correlations between pairs of reviewers were analyzed for each model. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was high for all 5 measures of polyp burden. Measures that used both polyp count and polyp size had better interobserver agreement than measures based only on polyp count. The measure in which polyp counts were weighted according to diameter, calculated as (1) × (no. of polyps <2 mm) + (3) × (no. of polyps 2-4 mm) + (5) × (no. of polyps >4 mm) had the highest interobserver agreement (Pearson r = 0.978 for two gastroenterologists, 0.786 and 0.846 for the surgeon vs each gastroenterologist). Treatment reduced the polyp burden by these measurements in 70% to 89% of patients (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Phase II study. CONCLUSION: This novel, Web-based polyp scoring method provides a convenient and reproducible way to quantify the global colorectal adenoma burden in FAP patients and a framework for developing a clinical staging system for FAP.