International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Study of Reproducibility in Assessment of Pathologic Response in Resected Lung Cancers After Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria. An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion. Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma. Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy

Interobserver variation among pathologists and refinement of criteria in distinguishing separate primary tumors from intrapulmonary metastases in lung

Multiple tumor nodules are seen with increasing frequency in clinical practice. On the basis of the 2015 WHO classification of lung tumors, we assessed the reproducibility of the comprehensive histologic assessment to distinguish second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) from intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs), looking for the most distinctive histologic features. An international panel of lung pathologists reviewed a scanned sequential cohort of 126 tumors from 48 patients and recorded an agreed set of histologic features, including tumor typing and predominant pattern of adenocarcinoma, thereby opining whether the case was SPLC, IPM, or a combination thereof. Cohen kappa statistics of 0.60 on overall assessment of SPLC or IPM indicated a good agreement. Likewise, there was good agreement (kappa score 0.64, p < 0.0001) between WHO histologic pattern in individual cases and SPLC or IPM status, but the proportions diversified for histologic pattern and SPLC or IPM status (McNemar test, p < 0.0001). The strongest associations for distinguishing between SPLC and IPM were observed for nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, mitotic rate, nuclear inclusions, intraalveolar clusters, and necrosis. Conversely, the associations for lymphocytosis, mucin content, lepidic growth, vascular invasion, macrophage response, clear cell change, acute inflammation keratinization, and emperipolesis did not reach significance with tumor extent. Comprehensive histologic assessment is recommended for distinguishing SPLC from IPM with good reproducibility among lung pathologists. In addition to main histologic type and predominant patterns of histologic subtypes, nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, and mitotic rate strongly correlate with pathologic staging status. (C) 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.N

Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer

Since the 2015 WHO classification was introduced into clinical practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has figured prominently in lung cancer diagnosis. In addition to distinction of small cell versus non–small cell carcinoma, patients’ treatment of choice is directly linked to histologic subtypes of non–small cell carcinoma, which pertains to IHC results, particularly for poorly differentiated tumors. The use of IHC has improved diagnostic accuracy in the classification of lung carcinoma, but the interpretation of IHC results remains challenging in some instances. Also, pathologists must be aware of many interpretation pitfalls, and the use of IHC should be efficient to spare the tissue for molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee received questions on practical application and interpretation of IHC in lung cancer diagnosis. After discussions in several International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee meetings, the issues and caveats were summarized in terms of 11 key questions covering common and important diagnostic situations in a daily clinical practice with some relevant challenging queries. The questions cover topics such as the best IHC markers for distinguishing NSCLC subtypes, differences in thyroid transcription factor 1 clones, and the utility of IHC in diagnosing uncommon subtypes of lung cancer and distinguishing primary from metastatic tumors. This article provides answers and explanations for the key questions about the use of IHC in diagnosis of lung carcinoma, representing viewpoints of experts in thoracic pathology that should assist the community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic pathology

PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Comparability Study in Real-Life Clinical Samples: Results of Blueprint Phase 2 Project

Objectives: The Blueprint (BP) Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry Comparability Project is a pivotal academic/professional society and industrial collaboration to assess the feasibility of harmonizing the clinical use of five independently developed commercial PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays. The goal of BP phase 2 (BP2) was to validate the results obtained in BP phase 1 by using real-world clinical lung cancer samples. Methods: BP2 were conducted using 81 lung cancer specimens of various histological and sample types, stained with all five trial-validated PD-L1 assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, SP263, and 73-10); the slides were evaluated by an international panel of pathologists. BP2 also assessed the reliability of PD-L1 scoring by using digital images, and samples prepared for cytological examination. PD-L1 expression was assessed for percentage (tumor proportional score) of tumor cell (TC) and immune cell areas showing PD-L1 staining, with TCs scored continuously or categorically with the cutoffs used in checkpoint inhibitor trials. Results: The BP2 results showed highly comparable staining by the 22C3, 28-8 and SP263 assays; less sensitivity with the SP142 assay; and higher sensitivity with the 73-10 assay to detect PD-L1 expression on TCs. Glass slide and digital image scorings were highly concordant (Pearson correlation >0.96). There was very strong reliability among pathologists in TC PD-L1 scoring with all assays (overall intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.86–0.93), poor reliability in IC PD-L1 scoring (overall ICC = 0.18–0.19), and good agreement in assessing PD-L1 status on cytological cell block materials (ICC = 0.78–0.85). Conclusion: BP2 consolidates the analytical evidence for interchangeability of the 22C3, 28-8, and SP263 assays and lower sensitivity of the SP142 assay for determining tumor proportion score on TCs and demonstrates greater sensitivity of the 73-10 assay compared with that of the other assays

Interobserver Variation among Pathologists and Refinement of Criteria in Distinguishing Separate Primary Tumors from Intrapulmonary Metastases in Lung

Multiple tumor nodules are seen with increasing frequency in clinical practice. On the basis of the 2015 WHO classification of lung tumors, we assessed the reproducibility of the comprehensive histologic assessment to distinguish second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) from intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs), looking for the most distinctive histologic features. An international panel of lung pathologists reviewed a scanned sequential cohort of 126 tumors from 48 patients and recorded an agreed set of histologic features, including tumor typing and predominant pattern of adenocarcinoma, thereby opining whether the case was SPLC, IPM, or a combination thereof. Cohen κ statistics of 0.60 on overall assessment of SPLC or IPM indicated a good agreement. Likewise, there was good agreement (κ score 0.64, p < 0.0001) between WHO histologic pattern in individual cases and SPLC or IPM status, but the proportions diversified for histologic pattern and SPLC or IPM status (McNemar test, p < 0.0001). The strongest associations for distinguishing between SPLC and IPM were observed for nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, mitotic rate, nuclear inclusions, intraalveolar clusters, and necrosis. Conversely, the associations for lymphocytosis, mucin content, lepidic growth, vascular invasion, macrophage response, clear cell change, acute inflammation keratinization, and emperipolesis did not reach significance with tumor extent. Comprehensive histologic assessment is recommended for distinguishing SPLC from IPM with good reproducibility among lung pathologists. In addition to main histologic type and predominant patterns of histologic subtypes, nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, and mitotic rate strongly correlate with pathologic staging status