Development and External Validation of a Model to Predict Overall Survival in Patients With Resected Gallbladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical prediction model to predict overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic, resected gallbladder cancer (GBC). BACKGROUND: Although several tools are available, no optimal method has been identified to assess survival in patients with resected GBC. METHODS: Data from a Dutch, nation-wide cohort of patients with resected GBC was used to develop a prediction model for overall survival. The model was internally validated and a cohort of Australian GBC patients who underwent resection was used for external validation. The performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system and the present model were compared. RESULTS: In total, 446 patients were included; 380 patients in the development cohort and 66 patients in the validation cohort. In the development cohort median survival was 22 months (median follow-up 75 months). Age, T/N classification, resection margin, differentiation grade, and vascular invasion were independent predictors of survival. The externally validated C-index was 0.75 (95%CI: 0.69-0.80), implying good discriminatory capacity. The discriminative ability of the present model after internal validation was superior to the ability of the AJCC staging system (Harrell C-index 0.71, [95%CI: 0.69-0.72) vs. 0.59 (95% CI: 0.57-0.60)]. CONCLUSION: The proposed model for the prediction of overall survival in patients with resected GBC demonstrates good discriminatory capacity, reasonable calibration and outperforms the authoritative AJCC staging system. This model can be a useful tool for physicians and patients to obtain information about survival after resection and is available from https:// gallbladderresearch.shinyapps.io/Predict_GBC_survival/.

Mucin expression in gastric- and gastro-oesophageal signet-ring cell cancer: results from a comprehensive literature review and a large cohort study of Caucasian and Asian gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The literature on the prognostic relevance of signet-ring cell (SRC) histology in gastric cancer (GC) is controversial which is most likely related to inconsistent SRC classification based on haematoxylin-eosin staining. We hypothesised that mucin stains can consistently identify SRC-GC and predict GC patient outcome. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review on mucin stains in SRC-GC and characterised the mucin expression in 851 Caucasian GC and 410 Asian GC using Alcian Blue (AB)-Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS), MUC2 (intestinal-type mucin), and MUC5AC (gastric-type mucin). The relationship between mucin expression and histological phenotype [poorly cohesive (PC) including proportion of SRCs, non-poorly cohesive (non-PC), or mucinous (MC)], clinicopathological variables, and patient outcome was analysed. RESULTS: Depending on mucin expression and cut-offs, the positivity rates of SRC-GC reported in the literature varied from 6 to 100%. Patients with MUC2 positive SRC-GC or SRC-GC with (gastro)intestinal phenotype had poorest outcome. In our cohort study, PC with ≥ 10% SRCs expressed more frequently MUC2, MUC5AC, and ABPAS (p < 0.001, p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Caucasians with AB positive GC or combined ABPAS-MUC2 positive and MUC5AC negative had poorest outcome (all p = 0.002). This association was not seen in Asian patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to suggest that mucin stains do not help to differentiate between SRC-GC and non-SRC-GC. However, mucin stains appear to be able to identify GC patients with different outcome. To our surprise, the relationship between outcome and mucin expression seems to differ between Caucasian and Asian GC patients which warrants further investigations.

Correction to: Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.

The authors would like to correct the error in the publication of the original article. The surname and given names of the authors were swapped in the "Acknowledgements". The corrected detail is given below.

Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer (GC) are changing, especially in the West with a decreasing incidence of distal, intestinal-type tumours and the corresponding increasing proportion of tumours with Laurén diffuse or WHO poorly cohesive (PC) including signet ring cell (SRC) histology. To accurately assess the behaviour and the prognosis of these GC subtypes, the standardization of pathological definitions is needed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert team belonging to the European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association (IGCA) identified 11 topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. The topics were debated during a dedicated Workshop held in Verona in March 2017. Then, through a Delphi method, consensus statements for each topic were elaborated. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on the need to classify gastric carcinoma according to the most recent edition of the WHO classification which is currently WHO 2010. Moreover, to standardize the definition of SRC carcinomas, the proposal that only WHO PC carcinomas with more than 90% poorly cohesive cells having signet ring cell morphology have to be classified as SRC carcinomas was made. All other PC non-SRC types have to be further subdivided into PC carcinomas with SRC component (< 90% but > 10% SRCs) and PC carcinomas not otherwise specified (< 10% SRCs). CONCLUSION: The reported statements clarify some debated topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. As such, this consensus classification would allow the generation of evidence on biological and prognostic differences between these GC subtypes.

Laboratory variation in the grading of dysplasia of duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis patients.

To prevent duodenal and ampullary cancer in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients, a diagnosis of high grade dysplasia (HGD) plays an important role in the clinical management. Previous research showed that FAP patients are both over- and undertreated after a misdiagnosis of HGD, indicating unwarranted variation. We aimed to investigate the laboratory variation in dysplasia grading of duodenal adenomas and explore possible explanations for this variation. We included data from all Dutch pathology laboratories between 1991 and 2020 by retrieving histology reports from upper endoscopy specimens of FAP patients from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (PALGA). Laboratory variation was investigated by comparing standardized proportions of HGD. To describe the degree of variation between the laboratories a factor score was calculated. A funnel plot was used to identify outliers. A total of 3050 specimens from 25 laboratories were included in the final analyses. The mean observed HGD proportion was 9.4%. The top three HGD-diagnosing laboratories diagnosed HGD 3.9 times more often than the lowest three laboratories, even after correcting for case-mix. No outliers were identified. Moderate laboratory variation was found in HGD diagnoses of duodenal tissue of FAP patients after adjusting for case-mix. Despite the fact that no outliers were observed, there may well be room for quality improvement. Concentration of these patients in expertise centers may decrease variation. To further reduce unwarranted variation, we recommend (inter)national guidelines to become more uniform in their recommendations regarding duodenal tissue sampling and consequences of HGD diagnoses.

Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal, endometrial and upper urinary tract tumours are characteristic for Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis colon carcinoma, HNPCC). The aim of the present study was to establish whether carriers of mutations in mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2 or MSH6 are at increased risk of urinary bladder cancer. METHODS: Carriers and first degree relatives of 95 families with a germline mutation in the MLH1 (n=26), MSH2 (n=43), or MSH6 (n=26) gene were systematically questioned about the occurrence of carcinoma. The cumulative risk of cancer occurring before the age of 70 years (CR70) was compared to the CR70 of the general Dutch population. Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair proteins was performed on bladder tumour tissue. RESULTS: Bladder cancer was diagnosed in 21 patients (90% men) from 19 Lynch syndrome families (2 MLH1, 15 MSH2, and 4 MSH6). CR70 for bladder cancer was 7.5% (95% CI 3.1% to 11.9%) for men and 1.0% (95% CI 0% to 2.4%) for women, resulting in relative risks for mutation carriers and first degree relatives of 4.2 (95% CI 2.2 to 7.2) for men and 2.2 (95% CI 0.3 to 8.0) for women. Men carrying an MSH2 mutation and their first degree relatives were at highest risks: CR70 for bladder and upper urinary tract cancer being 12.3% (95% CI 4.3% to 20.3%) and 5.9% (95% CI 0.7% to 11.1%). Bladder cancer tissue was MSI positive in 6/7 tumours and loss of IHC staining was found in 14/17 tumours, indicating Lynch syndrome aetiology. CONCLUSION: Patients with Lynch syndrome carrying an MSH2 mutation are at increased risk of urinary tract cancer including bladder cancer. In these cases surveillance should be considered.

Identifying Biomarkers in Lymph Node Metastases of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma for Tumor-Targeted Imaging.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor-targeted imaging is a promising technique for the detection of lymph node metastases (LNM) and primary tumors. It remains unclear which biomarker is the most suitable target to distinguish malignant from healthy tissue in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). OBJECTIVE: We performed an immunohistochemistry study to identify viable tumor markers for tumor-targeted imaging of EAC. METHODS: We used samples from 72 patients with EAC to determine the immunohistochemical expression of ten potential tumor biomarkers for EAC (carbonic anhydrase IX [CA-IX], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], hepatic growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, epithelial membrane antigen [EMA], epithelial cell adhesion molecule [EpCAM], human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER-2], urokinase plasminogen activator receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor-A [VEGF-A], and VEGF receptor 2). Immunohistochemistry was performed on tissue microarrays of LNM (n = 48), primary EACs (n = 62), fibrotic tissues (n = 11), nonmalignant lymph nodes (n = 24), and normal esophageal and gastric tissues (n = 40). Tumor marker staining was scored on intensity and percentage of positive cells. RESULTS: EMA and EpCAM showed strong expression in LNM (> 95%) and primary EACs (> 95%). Significant expression was also observed for LNM and EAC using VEGF-A (85 and 92%), CEA (68 and 54%), and CA-IX (4 and 34%). The other tumor biomarkers showed expression of 0-15% for LNM and primary EAC. Except for VEGF-A, nonmalignant lymph node staining was scored as slight or absent. CONCLUSIONS: High expression rates and correlation between LNM in EAC combined with low expression rates in healthy lymph nodes and esophagus tissues were observed for EpCAM and CEA, meaning these are promising targets for tumor-targeted imaging approaches for lymph nodes in patients with EAC.

HNF4A immunohistochemistry facilitates distinction between primary and metastatic breast and gastric carcinoma.

The distinction between primary gastric adenocarcinoma and gastric metastatic breast carcinoma can be difficult. Expression of hepatocyte nuclear factor 4A (HNF4A) has been described as being specific to distinguish between neoplastic gastric and breast epithelial cells. The aim of this study was to validate the use of HNF4A with immunohistochemistry in discriminating gastric from breast carcinomas. Immunohistochemical expressions of HNF4A, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and BRST-2 were determined in primary sporadic gastric adenocarcinomas (n = 107) and breast carcinomas (n = 105). The same markers and clinicopathological features were studied in 1 patient with breast metastasis of gastric cancer, 6 patients with gastric metastases of breast cancer, and 13 patients with both primary gastric and breast carcinomas. HNF4A expression was seen in 106 of 107 primary gastric adenocarcinomas and was absent in all 105 primary breast carcinomas (sensitivity 99 %, specificity 100 %). ER, PR, and BRST-2 were 100 % specific for breast carcinomas with sensitivities of 77, 58, and 38 %, respectively. The metastasis of gastric carcinoma to the breast showed strong expression of HNF4A. None of the metastases of breast carcinomas to the stomach showed expression of HNF4A. Tissues of patients with two primary carcinomas showed strong expression of HNF4A in all gastric carcinomas and no expression in breast carcinomas. Our results indicate that HNF4A is a very good marker to discriminate between primary and metastatic gastric and breast carcinomas.