HER2 Testing in Endometrial Serous Carcinoma: Time for Standardized Pathology Practice to Meet the Clinical Demand.

CONTEXT.­: Endometrial serous carcinoma is an aggressive subtype of endometrial cancer with the highest rate of recurrence and mortality among all histotypes. A recent clinical trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in advanced-stage and recurrent human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive endometrial serous carcinoma when trastuzumab was added to the standard chemotherapy regimen. This targeted therapeutic approach was recently endorsed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical guidelines. There is a growing interest among clinicians to obtain HER2 testing in endometrial serous carcinoma, and pathologists need to be prepared to recognize the unique characteristics of HER2 protein expression and gene amplification in these tumors and apply specific HER2 scoring criteria. OBJECTIVE.­: To provide a historical overview of targeted HER2 therapy in endometrial serous carcinoma and to summarize key findings from recent studies on the specific features of HER2 protein expression and gene amplification relative to other tumor types. Endometrial carcinoma-specific HER2 testing criteria are proposed based on evidence in the existing literature. DATA SOURCES.­: Sources comprise review of the literature and personal experience of the author. CONCLUSIONS.­: HER2 protein overexpression and/or gene amplification is present in approximately 25% to 30% of endometrial serous carcinomas, providing an opportunity for targeted therapy. Pathologists play a key role in tumor HER2 testing and scoring to ensure appropriate patient selection and successful clinical outcome.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider*: Approaches to the Conduct and Interpretation of Vaccine Safety Studies for Clinical and Anatomic Pathologists.

The design and execution of toxicology studies supporting vaccine development have some unique considerations relative to those supporting traditional small molecules and biologics. A working group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee conducted a review of the scientific, technical, and regulatory considerations for veterinary pathologists and toxicologists related to the design and evaluation of regulatory toxicology studies supporting vaccine clinical trials. Much of the information in this document focuses on the development of prophylactic vaccines for infectious agents. Many of these considerations also apply to therapeutic vaccine development (such as vaccines directed against cancer epitopes); important differences will be identified in various sections as appropriate. The topics addressed in this Points to Consider article include regulatory guidelines for nonclinical vaccine studies, study design (including species selection), technical considerations in dosing and injection site collection, study end point evaluation, and data interpretation. The intent of this publication is to share learnings related to nonclinical studies to support vaccine development to help others as they move into this therapeutic area. [Box: see text].

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider*: Review of Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Review of Current Practices for Ultrastructural Pathology Evaluations in Support of Nonclinical Toxicology Studies.

Anatomic pathology and clinical pathology end points are standard components of almost every nonclinical general toxicity study conducted during the risk assessment of novel pharmaceuticals and chemicals. On occasion, an ultrastructural pathology evaluation using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) may be included in nonclinical toxicity studies. Transmission electron microscopy is most commonly used when a light microscopic finding may require further characterization that could inform on the pathogenesis and/or mechanism of action. Regulatory guidance do not address the use of TEM in general study designs nor whether these assessments should be performed in laboratories conducted in compliance with Good Laboratory Practices. The Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) formed a Working Group to assess the current practices on the use of TEM in nonclinical toxicity studies. The Working Group constructed a survey sent to members of societies of toxicologic pathology in the United States, Europe, Britain, and Japan, and responses were collected through the STP for evaluation by the Working Group. The survey results and regulatory context are discussed, as are "points to consider" from the collective experience of the Working Group. This survey indicates that TEM remains an essential diagnostic option for complementing toxicologic pathology evaluations. *This Points to Consider article is a product of a Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) Working Group commissioned by the Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) of the STP. It has been reviewed and approved by the SRPC and Executive Committee of the STP but it does not represent a formal Best Practice recommendation of the Society; rather, it is intended to provide key "points to consider" in designing nonclinical studies or interpreting data from toxicity and safety studies intended to support regulatory submissions. The points expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect views or policies of the employing institutions. Readers of Toxicologic Pathology are encouraged to send their thoughts on these articles or ideas for new topics to the Editor.

Crucial parameters in thyroid carcinoma reporting - challenges, controversies and clinical implications.

In the modern era, a pathology report of thyroid carcinoma requires the inclusion of numerous prognostically relevant histopathological features, e.g. the presence and extent of vascular and capsular invasion, extrathyroidal extension, the surgical margin status and the characteristics of nodal metastasis. These pathological features are crucial components of the initial risk stratification to determine the need for completion thyroidectomy and/or postoperative radioactive iodine ablation therapy. The current review aims to summarise the diagnostic criteria, the controversies, the prognostic impacts and the challenges of these pathological characteristics, focusing specifically on the parameters that are incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) reporting template, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider Review: Inclusion of Reproductive and Pathology End Points for Assessment of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity in Pharmaceutical Drug Development.

Standard components of nonclinical toxicity testing for novel pharmaceuticals include clinical and anatomic pathology, as well as separate evaluation of effects on reproduction and development to inform clinical development and labeling. General study designs in regulatory guidances do not specifically mandate use of pathology or reproductive end points across all study types; thus, inclusion and use of these end points are variable. The Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) formed a Working Group to assess the current guidelines and practices on the use of reproductive, anatomic pathology, and clinical pathology end points in general, reproductive, and developmental toxicology studies. The Working Group constructed a survey sent to pathologists and reproductive toxicologists, and responses from participating organizations were collected through the STP for evaluation by the Working Group. The regulatory context, relevant survey results, and collective experience of the Working Group are discussed and provide the basis of each assessment by study type. Overall, the current practice of including specific end points on a case-by-case basis is considered appropriate. Points to consider are summarized for inclusion of reproductive end points in general toxicity studies and for the informed use of pathology end points in reproductive and developmental toxicity studies.

Discordance of histopathologic parameters in cutaneous melanoma: Clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Histopathologic analysis remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of melanoma, however previous studies have shown a substantial rate of interobserver variability in the evaluation of melanocytic lesions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate discordance in the histopathological diagnosis and microstaging parameters of melanoma and subsequent impact on clinical management. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 588 cases of cutaneous melanoma and melanoma in situ from January 2009 to December 2014 that were referred to Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, for treatment. Per institutional policy, all outside melanoma biopsy specimens were reviewed internally. Outside and institutional reports were compared. RESULTS: Disagreement between outside and internal reports resulted in a change in American Joint Committee on Cancer pathologic stage in 114/588 (19%) cases, resulting in a change in management based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in 105/588 (18%) cases. LIMITATIONS: Given the retrospective nature of data collection and the bias of a tertiary care referral center, cases in this study may not be representative of all melanoma diagnoses. CONCLUSION: These findings confirm consistent subjectivity in the histopathologic interpretation of melanoma. This study emphasizes that a review of the primary biopsy specimen may lead to significant changes in tumor classification, resulting in meaningful changes in clinical management.

The dermatology hospitalist: creating value by rapid clinical pathologic correlation in a patient-centered care model.

BACKGROUND: The active and continuous presence of dermatologists in hospitals has undergone continued involution over the past two decades. Our patient-centered, value-based dermatology hospitalist model describes an efficient system for the integration of the dermatologist in the hospital treatment team. METHODS: We describe five difficult inpatient cases to illustrate the value of dermatology intervention and clinical pathologic correlation in facilitating timely diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Prompt specialty evaluation and clinicopathologic correlation by hospital dermatologists led to decreased morbidity and the avoidance of delay in initiating definitive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Efficient evaluation and clinicopathologic correlation by dermatology hospitalists are essential to hospitals that provide comprehensive care. This value-based model has the potential to produce better patient outcomes and greater satisfaction in both patients and other health care providers.

Expert second-opinion pathology review of lymphoma in the era of the World Health Organization classification.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematologic malignancies, published in 2000, was designed to improve diagnostic accuracy by incorporating the latest in scientific understanding. The impact of the WHO classification on the frequency of diagnostic discrepancy in lymphoma is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed all second-opinion pathology of lymphoma at our National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) from January to June 2001 and from January to June 2006. Discrepancies between submitted and second-opinion diagnoses were scored based upon an a priori grading schema. RESULTS: Major diagnostic revision was rendered in 65 of 365 cases (17.8%) in 2001 and 58 of 354 (16.4%) in 2006 (P=NS). Including cases reviewed and revised beforehand at another NCI-CCC, rates of major diagnostic revision were 21.4% and 18.6%, respectively (P=NS). Discrepancy rates varied by diagnosis, from Hodgkin lymphoma (10%) to Burkitt's lymphoma (75%). No association was seen for age, gender, race/ethnicity, biopsy type, or nature of referring center. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful diagnostic revision occurs frequently with expert pathology review for a diagnosis of lymphoma. Despite the WHO classification, rates of diagnostic revision at our institution in 2001 and 2006 did not differ significantly. Given the potential harm from misdiagnosis, expert hematopathology review should be considered the standard of care.

The Organization of European Cancer Institute Pathobiology Working Group and its support of European biobanking infrastructures for translational cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Today's translational cancer research increasingly depends on international multi-center studies. Biobanking infrastructure or comprehensive sample exchange platforms to enable networking of clinical cancer biobanks are instrumental to facilitate communication, uniform sample quality, and rules for exchange. METHODS: The Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) Pathobiology Working Group supports European biobanking infrastructure by maintaining the OECI-TuBaFrost exchange platform and organizing regular meetings. This platform originated from a European Commission project and is updated with knowledge from ongoing and new biobanking projects. This overview describes how European biobanking projects that have a large impact on clinical biobanking, including EuroBoNeT, SPIDIA, and BBMRI, contribute to the update of the OECI-TuBaFrost exchange platform. RESULTS: Combining the results of these European projects enabled the creation of an open (upon valid registration only) catalogue view of cancer biobanks and their available samples to initiate research projects. In addition, closed environments supporting active projects could be developed together with the latest views on quality, access rules, ethics, and law. CONCLUSIONS: With these contributions, the OECI Pathobiology Working Group contributes to and stimulates a professional attitude within biobanks at the European comprehensive cancer centers. IMPACT: Improving the fundamentals of cancer sample exchange in Europe stimulates the performance of large multi-center studies, resulting in experiments with the desired statistical significance outcome. With this approach, future innovation in cancer patient care can be realized faster and more reliably.

Head and neck cancer in the UK: what is expected of cytopathology?

OBJECTIVE: This review highlights the role of cytopathology in cancer management within UK Head and Neck Cancer Networks and informs on the issues raised by recent UK Department of Health documents and other UK professional guidance. UK guidance requires the formal involvement of cytopathologists within multidisciplinary cancer teams, with medical and non-medical cytopathology staff setting up and running rapid access lump clinics, and support for image-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) services. UK guidance also makes recommendations for training, resources and quality control. This review also highlights the resource gap between best practice evidence-based guidance for head and neck (HN) cancer services and existing UK provision for cytopathology, as evidenced by lack of availability of experienced staff and adequacy of training and quality control (QC). Finally, it stresses the importance in the UK of the Royal College of Pathologists' guidance, which defines the need for training, the experience needed for new consultants, the requirements for audit and QC. The implications for the additional resources required for HN cancer cytopathology services are discussed. Recent professional guidance specifying the provision of HN cancer services in the UK includes a cytopathology service for cancer networks, such as rapid access FNAC clinics. Although these clinics already operate in some institutions, there are many institutions where they do not and where the provision of cytopathology services would have to be restructured. This would need the support of local cancer networks and their acceptance of the detailed requirements for cytopathology, including resources, training and QC. The standards are not defined locally, as Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts have been instructed by the Department of Health to support, invest and implement them.

MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein assays for monitoring breast cancer (CA 15-3, CA 27.29, BR): are they measuring the same antigen?

CONTEXT: There are 2 general types of assays measuring MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein: assays for cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, which are sandwich assays, and assays for CA 27.29, which are competitive assays. These 2 types of assays measure slightly different parts of this tandem-repeat molecule. Across-method assay differences hinder the exchange of patient test values among integrated health care networks and among countries. OBJECTIVE: This report evaluates the method differences among these assays to determine if the differences between these assays are mainly related to variations in calibration or differences in analyte specificity. DESIGN: Data from 22 College of American Pathologists survey challenges were analyzed to compare 10 commercial assay methods for these 2 related analytes. In addition, data from 58 patient samples were analyzed to compare 3 of these assays. RESULTS: The linear correlation coefficients comparing the within-method medians of these proficiency test distributions were very high (>0.99) for all of the methods; however, the regression slopes varied from 0.836 to 1.095. The regression slopes for the patient specimens varied similarly, but the correlation coefficients were lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that many of the test value differences for these measurements are due to differences in assay calibration rather than differences in the specificity of the assay measurement systems. Survey test data potentially could be used to help harmonize these assay differences.

Clinical significance of performing immunohistochemistry on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer coming to a national comprehensive cancer center for treatment or second opinion.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is an important adjunctive test in diagnostic surgical pathology. We studied the clinical significance and outcomes in performing IHC on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer who are coming to the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC), a National Cancer Institute designated National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCC), for treatment and/or second opinion. We reviewed all the outside surgical pathology slide review cases seen at the FCCC for 1998 and 1999 in which IHC was performed. Cases were divided into the following: confirmation of outside diagnoses without and with prior IHC performed by the outside institution (groups A and B, respectively) and cases with a significant change in diagnosis without and with prior IHC performed by the outside institution (groups C and D, respectively). During 1998 and 1999, 6678 slide review cases were reviewed at the FCCC with an overall significant change in diagnosis in 213 cases (3.2%). IHC was performed on 186 of 6678 (2.7%) slide review cases with confirmation of the outside diagnosis in 152 (81.7%) cases and a significant change in diagnosis in 34 (18.3%) cases. Patient follow-up was obtained in 32 of 34 (94.1%) cases with a significant change in diagnosis (groups C and D), which confirmed the correctness of our diagnosis in 26 of 27 cases (96%; in five cases follow-up was inconclusive). We repeated the identical antibodies performed by the outside institutions in group D (37 antibodies) and group B (133 antibodies) with different results in 48.6% and 13.5%, respectively (overall nonconcordance 21.2%). In group D additional antibody tests beyond that performed by the outside institution were needed in 88.8% of cases to make a change of diagnosis. In the setting of a NCCC, reperforming and/or performing IHC on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer is not a duplication of effort or misuse of resources. Repeating and/or performing IHC in this setting is important in the care and management of patients with cancer.

Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center: correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians at the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) base prostate carcinoma treatment decisions regarding need to treat, field size, total dose, and adjuvant hormonal therapy on known prognostic factors including clinical stage, Gleason score (GS), perineural invasion (PNI), and pretreatment prostate specific antigen levels. The pathology of every patient is reviewed at FCCC to confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. The objective of this study was to define differences between pathologic reviews and their impact on treatment between outside institutions and FCCC. METHODS: The authors reviewed 538 pathology reports of prostate biopsies performed at both outside pathology departments and FCCC on patients evaluated between January 1993 and December 1996. The outside pathology reviews represented 107 community hospitals, academic institutions, and private pathology laboratories. Patients who had received hormonal therapy, cryosurgery, or radical prostatectomy prior to prostate biopsy were excluded from analysis. Final FCCC pathology determinations were compared with pathology reports from outside institutions. Reports then were analyzed to determine whether differences in interpretation would have resulted in different treatment strategies. Differences in percentages according to institutional type were evaluated using the chi-square statistic. The cost was assessed and cost per change in treatment estimated. RESULTS: The 538 pathology reviews identified a nearly 40% change in GS and a 13% change in > or =2 GS between the FCCC pathology review and 107 outside academic institutions. The results of this study showed that 22% of community hospitals, 10% of private laboratories, and 8% of academic institutions demonstrated at least 2 GS changes compared with the FCCC pathology review (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference observed between types of institutions in the incidence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides evidence of a significant difference in the pathologic reviews of prostate biopsies conducted at FCCC and outside pathology departments. There was a nearly 40% change in GS and a 13% change in > or =2 GS between the FCCC pathology review and 107 outside institutions. The second pathology review added approximately $104 per case for a total of $55,952 to review all 538 cases. Overall, the savings in health care dollars resulting from the second pathologic review totaled $12,997. This second review of outside pathology in prostate cancer appears to be justified based on the treatment changes and on cost.