Reproducibility of the peritoneal regression grading score for assessment of response to therapy in peritoneal metastasis.

AIMS: The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) assesses the response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM). The PRGS is used, for example, to assess the response to pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). However, the reproducibility of the PRGS is currently unknown. We aimed to evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of the PRGS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-three patients who underwent at least three PIPAC treatments as part of the PIPAC-OPC1 or PIPAC-OPC2 clinical trials at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, were included. Prior to each therapy cycle, peritoneal quadrant biopsies were obtained and three haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained step sections were scanned and uploaded to a pseudonymised web library. For determining interobserver variability, eight pathologists assessed the PRGS for each quadrant biopsy, and Krippendorff's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. For determining intraobserver variability, three pathologists repeated their own assessments and Cohen's kappa and ICCs were calculated. A total of 331 peritoneal biopsies were analysed. Interobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was moderate to good/substantial. The intraobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was good to excellent/almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the PRGS as a reproducible and useful tool to assess response to intraperitoneal chemotherapy in PM. Future studies should evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of the PRGS.

Standardized assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: an evaluation of inter-observer agreement between pathologists.

INTRODUCTION: In breast cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) may have clinical utility and may be able to direct clinical decisions for subgroups of patients. Clinical utility is, however, not sufficient for warranting the implementation of a new biomarker in the routine practice, and evaluation of the analytical validity is needed, including testing the reproducibility of decentralized assessment of TILs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-observer agreement of TILs assessment using a standardized method, as proposed by the International TILs Working Group 2014, applied to a cohort of breast cancers reflecting an average breast cancer population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stromal TILs were assessed using full slide sections from 124 breast cancers with varying histology, malignancy grade and ER- and HER2 status. TILs were estimated by nine dedicated breast pathologists using scanned hematoxylin-eosin stainings. TILs results were categorized using various cutoffs, and the inter-observer agreement was evaluated using the intraclass coefficient (ICC), Kappa statistics as well as individual overall agreements with the median value of TILs. RESULTS: Evaluation of TILs led to an ICC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65-0.77) corresponding to an acceptable agreement. Kappa values were in the range of 0.38-0.46 corresponding to a fair to moderate agreement. The individual agreements increased, when using only two categories ('high' vs. 'low' TILs) and a cutoff of 50-60%. DISCUSSION: The results of the present study are in accordance with previous studies, and shows that the proposed methodology for standardized evaluation of TILs renders an acceptable inter-observer agreement. The findings, however, indicate that assessment of TILs needs further refinement, and is in support of the latest St. Gallen Consensus, that routine reporting of TILs for early breast cancer is not ready for implementation in a clinical setting.

An inter-observer Ki67 reproducibility study applying two different assessment methods: on behalf of the Danish Scientific Committee of Pathology, Danish breast cancer cooperative group (DBCG).

INTRODUCTION: In 2011, the St. Gallen Consensus Conference introduced the use of pathology to define the intrinsic breast cancer subtypes by application of immunohistochemical (IHC) surrogate markers ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 with a specified Ki67 cutoff (>14%) for luminal B-like definition. Reports concerning impaired reproducibility of Ki67 estimation and threshold inconsistency led to the initiation of this quality assurance study (2013-2015). The aim of the study was to investigate inter-observer variation for Ki67 estimation in malignant breast tumors by two different quantification methods (assessment method and count method) including measure of agreement between methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen experienced breast pathologists from 12 pathology departments evaluated 118 slides from a consecutive series of malignant breast tumors. The staining interpretation was performed according to both the Danish and Swedish guidelines. Reproducibility was quantified by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Lights Kappa with dichotomization of observations at the larger than (>) 20% threshold. The agreement between observations by the two quantification methods was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: For the fourteen raters the median ranged from 20% to 40% by the assessment method and from 22.5% to 36.5% by the count method. Light's Kappa was 0.664 for observation by the assessment method and 0.649 by the count method. The ICC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.86) by the assessment method vs. 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) by the count method. CONCLUSION: Although the study in general showed a moderate to good inter-observer agreement according to both ICC and Lights Kappa, still major discrepancies were identified in especially the mid-range of observations. Consequently, for now Ki67 estimation is not implemented in the DBCG treatment algorithm.