RESUMEN
CONTEXT.: In the United States, review of digital whole slide images (WSIs) using specific systems is approved for primary diagnosis but has not been implemented for intraoperative consultation. OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate the safety of review of WSIs and compare the efficiency of review of WSIs and glass slides (GSs) for intraoperative consultation. DESIGN.: Ninety-one cases previously submitted for frozen section evaluation were randomly selected from 8 different anatomic pathology subspecialties. GSs from these cases were scanned on a Leica Aperio AT2 scanner at ×20 magnification (0.25 µm/pixel). The slides were deidentified, and a short relevant clinical history was provided for each slide. Nine board-certified general pathologists who do not routinely establish primary diagnoses using WSIs reviewed the WSIs using Leica Aperio ImageScope viewing software. After a washout period of 2-3 weeks, the pathologists reviewed the corresponding GSs using a light microscope (Olympus BX43). The pathologists recorded the diagnosis and time to reach the diagnosis. Intraobserver concordance, time to diagnosis, and specificity and sensitivity compared to the original diagnosis were evaluated. RESULTS.: The rate of intraobserver concordance between GS results and WSI results was 93.7%. Mean time to diagnosis was 1.25 minutes for GSs and 1.76 minutes for WSIs (P < .001). Specificity was 91% for GSs and 90% for WSIs; sensitivity was 92% for GSs and 92% for WSIs. CONCLUSIONS.: Time to diagnosis was longer with WSIs than with GSs, and scanning GSs and uploading the data to whole slide imaging systems takes time. However, review of WSIs appears to be a safe alternative to review of GSs. Use of WSIs allows reporting from a remote site during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic and facilitates subspecialty histopathology services.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Salivary gland carcinomas (SGCs) are pathologically classified into several widely diverse subtypes, of which adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC), and salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) are the most commonly encountered. A comparative genetic analysis of these subtypes provides detailed information on the genetic alterations that are associated with their tumorigenesis and may lead to the identification of biomarkers to guide tumor-specific clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Whole-genome sequencing of 58 common SGCs (20 ACCs, 20 SDCs, and 18 MECs) was performed to catalog structural variations, copy number, rearrangements, and driver mutations. Data were bioinformatically analyzed and correlated with clinicopathologic parameters, and selected targets were validated. RESULTS: Novel and recurrent type-specific and shared genetic alterations were identified within and among 3 subtypes. Mutually exclusive canonical fusion and nonfusion genomic alterations were identified in both ACC and MEC. In ACCs, loss of chromosome 12q was dominant in MYB or MYBL1 fusion-positive tumors and mutations of NOTCH pathway were more common in these fusion negatives. In MECs, CRTC1-MAML2 fusion-positive tumors showed frequent BAP1 mutation, and tumors lacking this fusion were enriched with LRFN1 mutation. SDCs displayed considerable genetic instability, lacked recurrent chromosomal rearrangements, and demonstrated nonoverlapping TP53 mutation and ERBB2 amplification in a subset of tumors. Limited genetic alterations, including focal amplifications of 8q21-q23, were shared by all subtypes and were associated with poor survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study delineates type-specific and shared genetic alterations that are associated with early phenotypic commitment and the biologic progression of common SGCs. These alterations, upon validation, could serve as biomarkers in tumor-specific clinical trials.