Linitis plastica of the rectum secondary to prostate carcinoma.

Linitis plastica is an intramural carcinoma that may occur in any hollow organ. Rectal linitis plastica (RLP) is a morphological variant cancer that may occur as a primary form of cancer or secondary as a metastasis of a primary malignancy. We report the case of a man in his 70s with RLP secondary to prostate carcinoma who was initially suspected to have an obstructing rectal adenocarcinoma. During colonoscopy a segment of cobblestone mucosa was seen in the distal rectum. Subsequent imaging showed enhancement of all wall-layers of the rectum and diffuse retroperitoneal fat infiltration with traction on both ureters. A prostate-specific membrane antigen scan confirmed RLP secondary to a prostate carcinoma mimicking the clinical and radiological signs of an obstructing rectal carcinoma with retroperitoneal fibrosis.This case emphasises the possible pitfalls in the diagnosis of RLP and the importance of advanced imaging techniques, such as MRI, as well as appropriate histological samples. The patient underwent androgen deprivation therapy to which RLP responded well and neither systemic chemotherapy or surgery was necessary.

Individual risk calculator to predict lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is possible after endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that estimates the individual risk of metastases in patients with pT1b EAC. METHODS: A nationwide, retrospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients with pT1b EAC treated with endoscopic resection and/or surgery between 1989 and 2016. The primary end point was presence of LNM in surgical resection specimens or detection of metastases during follow-up. All resection specimens were histologically reassessed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists. Subdistribution hazard regression analysis was used to develop the prediction model. The discriminative ability of this model was assessed using the c-statistic. RESULTS: 248 patients with pT1b EAC were included. Metastases were seen in 78 patients, and the 5-year cumulative incidence was 30.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 25.1 %-36.8 %). The risk of metastases increased with submucosal invasion depth (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.08, 95 %CI 1.02-1.14, for every increase of 500 µm), lymphovascular invasion (SHR 2.95, 95 %CI 1.95-4.45), and for larger tumors (SHR 1.23, 95 %CI 1.10-1.37, for every increase of 10 mm). The model demonstrated good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81, 95 %CI 0.75-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients with pT1b EAC experienced metastases within 5 years. The probability of developing post-resection metastases was estimated with a personalized predicted risk score incorporating tumor invasion depth, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion. This model requires external validation before implementation into clinical practice.

Lymphovascular invasion quantification could improve risk prediction of lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma.

AIM: To quantify lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and to assess the prognostic value in patients with pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this nationwide, retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they were treated with surgery or endoscopic resection for pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. Primary endpoint was the presence of metastases, lymph node metastases, or distant metastases, in surgical resection specimens or during follow-up. A prediction model to identify risk factors for metastases was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: 248 patients were included. LVI was distributed as follows: no LVI (n = 196; 79.0%), 1 LVI focus (n = 16; 6.5%), 2-3 LVI foci (n = 21; 8.5%) and ≥4 LVI foci (n = 15; 6.0%). Seventy-eight patients had metastases. The risk of metastases was increased for tumors with 2-3 LVI foci [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10-5.47] and ≥4 LVI foci (SHR 3.81, 95% CI 2.37-6.10). The prediction model demonstrated a good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81). CONCLUSION: The risk of metastases is higher when more LVI foci are present. Quantification of LVI could be useful for a more precise risk estimation of metastases. This model needs to be externally validated before implementation into clinical practice.

Performance of gastrointestinal pathologists within a national digital review panel for Barrett's oesophagus in the Netherlands: results of 80 prospective biopsy reviews.

AIMS: The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight 'core' pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel. METHODS: Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists. RESULTS: After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who-after structured assessments and group discussions-can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.

Improved diagnostic stratification of digitised Barrett's oesophagus biopsies by p53 immunohistochemical staining.

AIMS: Interobserver agreement for dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is low, and guidelines advise expert review of dysplastic cases. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the homogeneity within a group of dedicated gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-single haematoxylin and eosin (HE) slide referral BO cases [20 low-grade dysplasia (LGD); 20 high-grade dysplasia (HGD); and 20 non-dysplastic BO reference cases] were digitalised and independently assessed twice in random order by 10 dedicated GI pathologists. After a 'wash-out' period, cases were reassessed with the addition of a corresponding p53 IHC slide. Outcomes were: (i) proportion of 'indefinite for dysplasia' (IND) diagnoses; (ii) interobserver agreement; and (iii) diagnostic accuracy as compared with a consensus 'gold standard' diagnosis defined at an earlier stage by five core expert BO pathologists after their assessment of this case set. Addition of p53 IHC decreased the mean proportion of IND diagnoses from 10 of 60 to eight of 60 (P = 0.071). Mean interobserver agreement increased significantly from 0.45 to 0.57 (P = 0.0021). The mean diagnostic accuracy increased significantly from 72% to 82% (P = 0.0072) after p53 IHC addition. CONCLUSION: Addition of p53 IHC significantly improves the histological assessment of BO biopsies, even within a group of dedicated GI pathologists. It decreases the proportion of IND diagnoses, and increases interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy. This justifies the use of accessory p53 IHC within our upcoming national digital review panel for BO biopsy cases.