Implementing structured pathology reporting protocol for non-melanocytic skin cancers: practical considerations.

Non-melanocytic skin cancers (NMSCs) account for five times the incidence of all other cancers combined and cost US $6 billion annually. These are the most frequent specimens encountered in community pathology practice in many Western countries. Lack of standardised structured pathology reporting protocols (SPRPs) can result in omission of critical information or miscommunication leading to suboptimal patient management. The lack of standardised data has significant downstream public health implications, including insufficient data for reliable development of prognostic tools and health-economy planning. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia has developed an NMSC SPRP. A multidisciplinary expert committee including pathologists, surgeons, dermatologists, and radiation and medical oncologists from high volume cancer centres was convened. A systematic literature review was performed to identify evidence for including elements as mandatory standards or best practice guidelines. The SPRP and accompanying commentary of evidence, definitions and criteria was peer reviewed by external stakeholders. Finally, the protocol was revised following feedback and trialled in multiple centres prior to implementation. Some parameters utilised clinically for determining management and prognosis including tumour depth, lymphovascular invasion or distance to the margins lack high level evidence in NMSC. Dermatologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists welcomed the SPRP. Pathologists indicated that the variety of NMSC specimens ranging from curettes to radical resections as well as significant differences in the biological behaviour of different tumours covered by the NMSC umbrella made use of a single protocol difficult. The feedback included that using a SPRP for low risk NMSC was neither clinically justified nor compensated adequately by the Australian Medicare Reimbursement Schedule. Following stakeholder feedback, the SPRP implementation was restricted to excision specimens of head and neck NMSC; and low-risk NMSC, such as superficial basal cell carcinoma, were excluded. Implementing NMSC SPRP fulfils an unmet clinical need. Unlike other cancers, NMSCs generate a range of specimen types and are reported in a wide range of pathology practices. Limiting use of SPRP to NMSC at higher risk of progression and providing formatted templates for easy incorporation into laboratory information systems were essential to successful deployment. In the future, further consideration should be given to implementing the SPRP to include all relevant specimens, including non-head and neck and low-risk NMSC specimens.

BRAF mutation testing for patients diagnosed with stage III or stage IV melanoma: practical guidance for the Australian setting.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAFV600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAFV600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAFV600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAFV600 mutations (including BRAFV600K), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAFV600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted.

The NSAID sulindac is chemopreventive in the mouse distal colon but carcinogenic in the proximal colon.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug sulindac is an effective chemopreventive agent in sporadic colorectal cancer but its potential benefit in mismatch repair deficient cancers remains to be defined. We wanted to determine whether genetic defects that are relevant for colorectal cancer, such as Msh2 or p53 deficiency, would influence the efficiency of sulindac chemoprevention or increase the side effects. METHODS: Msh2 or p53 deficient and wild-type mice received feed containing 160-320 ppm sulindac for up to 25 weeks with or without a concurrent treatment with the carcinogen azoxymethane. Colon tissue was analysed by histopathology and molecular biology methods. RESULTS: We show that sulindac prevented azoxymethane-induced distal colon tumours in all mice. In the proximal colon, however, sulindac induced new inflammatory lesions on the mucosal folds, which further developed into adenocarcinoma in up to 18-25% of the p53 or Msh2 deficient mice but rarely in wild-type mice. This region in the proximal colon was characterised by a distinct profile of pro- and anti-inflammatory factors, which were modulated by the sulindac diet, including upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α and macrophage inflammatory protein 2. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that the sulindac diet promotes carcinogenesis in the mouse proximal colon possibly through chronic inflammation. Sulindac has both beneficial and harmful effects in vivo, which are associated with different microenvironments within the colon of experimental mice. Deficiency for the Msh2 or p53 tumour suppressor genes increases the harmful side effects of long-term sulindac treatment in the mouse colon.