Ki-67 assessment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Systematic review and meta-analysis of manual vs. digital pathology scoring.

Ki-67 assessment is a key step in the diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) from all anatomic locations. Several challenges exist related to quantifying the Ki-67 proliferation index due to lack of method standardization and inter-reader variability. The application of digital pathology coupled with machine learning has been shown to be highly accurate and reproducible for the evaluation of Ki-67 in NENs. We systematically reviewed all published studies on the subject of Ki-67 assessment in pancreatic NENs (PanNENs) employing digital image analysis (DIA). The most common advantages of DIA were improvement in the standardization and reliability of Ki-67 evaluation, as well as its speed and practicality, compared to the current gold standard approach of manual counts from captured images, which is cumbersome and time consuming. The main limitations were attributed to higher costs, lack of widespread availability (as of yet), operator qualification and training issues (if it is not done by pathologists), and most importantly, the drawback of image algorithms counting contaminating non-neoplastic cells and other signals like hemosiderin. However, solutions are rapidly developing for all of these challenging issues. A comparative meta-analysis for DIA versus manual counting shows very high concordance (global coefficient of concordance: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83-0.98) between these two modalities. These findings support the widespread adoption of validated DIA methods for Ki-67 assessment in PanNENs, provided that measures are in place to ensure counting of only tumor cells either by software modifications or education of non-pathologist operators, as well as selection of standard regions of interest for analysis. NENs, being cellular and monotonous neoplasms, are naturally more amenable to Ki-67 assessment. However, lessons of this review may be applicable to other neoplasms where proliferation activity has become an integral part of theranostic evaluation including breast, brain, and hematolymphoid neoplasms.

T2 gallbladder cancer shows substantial survival variation between continents and this is not due to histopathologic criteria or pathologic sampling differences.

Published data on survival of T2 gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) from different countries show a wide range of 5-year survival rates from 30-> 70%. Recently, studies have demonstrated substantial variation between countries in terms of their approach to sampling gallbladders, and furthermore, that pathologists from different continents apply highly variable criteria in determining stage of invasion in this organ. These findings raised the question of whether these variations in pathologic evaluation could account for the vastly different survival rates of T2 GBC reported in the literature. In this study, survival of 316 GBCs from three countries (Chile n = 137, South Korea n = 105, USA n = 74), all adequately sampled (with a minimum of five tumor sections examined) and histopathologically verified as pT2 (after consensus examination by expert pathologists from three continents), was analyzed. Chilean patients had a significantly worse prognosis based on 5-year all-cause mortality (HR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.27-2.83, p = 0.002) and disease-specific mortality (HR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.51-3.84, p < 0.001), compared to their South Korean counterparts, even when controlled for age and sex. Comparing the USA to South Korea, the survival differences in all-cause mortality (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.12-2.75, p = 0.015) and disease-specific mortality (HR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.14-3.31, p = 0.015) were also pronounced. The 3-year disease-specific survival rates in South Korea, the USA, and Chile were 75%, 65%, and 55%, respectively, the 5-year disease-specific survival rates were 60%, 50%, and 50%, respectively, and the overall 5-year survival rates were 55%, 45%, and 35%, respectively. In conclusion, the survival of true T2 GBC in properly classified cases is neither as good nor as bad as previously documented in the literature and shows notable geographic differences even in well-sampled cases with consensus histopathologic criteria. Future studies should focus on other potential reasons including biologic, etiopathogenetic, management-related, populational, or healthcare practice-related factors that may influence the survival differences of T2 GBC in different regions.

Amsterdam International Consensus Meeting: tumor response scoring in the pathology assessment of resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Histopathologically scoring the response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to neoadjuvant treatment can guide the selection of adjuvant therapy and improve prognostic stratification. However, several tumor response scoring (TRS) systems exist, and consensus is lacking as to which system represents best practice. An international consensus meeting on TRS took place in November 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Here, we provide an overview of the outcomes and consensus statements that originated from this meeting. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached on a total of seven statements: (1) TRS is important because it provides information about the effect of neoadjuvant treatment that is not provided by other histopathology-based descriptors. (2) TRS for resected PDAC following neoadjuvant therapy should assess residual (viable) tumor burden instead of tumor regression. (3) The CAP scoring system is considered the most adequate scoring system to date because it is based on the presence and amount of residual cancer cells instead of tumor regression. (4) The defining criteria of the categories in the CAP scoring system should be improved by replacing subjective terms including "minimal" or "extensive" with objective criteria to evaluate the extent of viable tumor. (5) The improved, consensus-based system should be validated retrospectively and prospectively. (6) Prospective studies should determine the extent of tissue sampling that is required to ensure adequate assessment of the residual cancer burden, taking into account the heterogeneity of tumor response. (7) In future scientific publications, the extent of tissue sampling should be described in detail in the "Materials and methods" section.