International Guidelines for Veterinary Tumor Pathology: A Call to Action

Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as “living documents” on a website (www.vetcancerprotocols.org), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care

Canine Tonsillar Squamous Cell Carcinoma – A Multicentre Retrospective Review of 44 Clinical Cases

Objectives: To establish whether presenting clinical signs had prognostic significance in dogs with tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma (TSCC); to evaluate the impact of surgery on outcome and to compare the survival time of animals that received multimodality treatment with those that did not. Methods: The medical records of 44 dogs were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical signs, clinical stage, time of diagnosis, treatment and outcome were recorded. Data were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier, logrank, Student’s t test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Chi-square/Fisher Exact and Cox’s proportional hazards methods as appropriate. Results: Of all recorded presenting clinical signs only anorexia (p=0.02) and lethargy (p=0.015) were significantly associated with a poor outcome. Median survival time for all the dogs in the study was 179 days. Surgery increased median survival times in dogs that did not receive chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy), but did not significantly increase the survival time (p= 0.079) in dogs receiving multimodality therapy. Administration of chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy significantly increased the survival probability (p< 0.01). Clinical Significance: Dogs with TSCC with anorexia and lethargy have shorter survival times than patients not showing these clinical signs. This study indicates that chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) may significantly prolong survival time in dogs with TSCC

Recommended guidelines for the conduct and evaluation of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology

Abstract There is an increasing need for more accurate prognostic and predictive markers in veterinary oncology because of an increasing number of treatment options, the increased financial costs associated with treatment, and the emotional stress experienced by owners in association with the disease and its treatment. Numerous studies have evaluated potential prognostic and predictive markers for veterinary neoplastic diseases, but there are no established guidelines or standards for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary medicine. This lack of standardization has made the evaluation and comparison of studies difficult. Most important, translating these results to clinical applications is problematic. To address this issue, the American College of Veterinary Pathologists' Oncology Committee organized an initiative to establish guidelines for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology. The goal of this initiative is to increase the quality and standardization of veterinary prognostic studies to facilitate independent evaluation, validation, comparison, and implementation of study results. This article represents a consensus statement on the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology from veterinary pathologists and oncologists from around the world. These guidelines should be considered a recommendation based on the current state of knowledge in the field, and they will need to be continually reevaluated and revised as the field of veterinary oncology continues to progress. As mentioned, these guidelines were developed through an initiative of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists' Oncology Committee, and they have been reviewed and endorsed by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association

Recommended Guidelines for the Conduct and Evaluation of Prognostic Studies in Veterinary Oncology.

There is an increasing need for more accurate prognostic and predictive markers in veterinary oncology because of an increasing number of treatment options, the increased financial costs associated with treatment, and the emotional stress experienced by owners in association with the disease and its treatment. Numerous studies have evaluated potential prognostic and predictive markers for veterinary neoplastic diseases, but there are no established guidelines or standards for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary medicine. This lack of standardization has made the evaluation and comparison of studies difficult. Most important, translating these results to clinical applications is problematic. To address this issue, the American College of Veterinary Pathologists\u2019 Oncology Committee organized an initiative to establish guidelines for the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology. The goal of this initiative is to increase the quality and standardization of veterinary prognostic studies to facilitate independent evaluation, validation, comparison, and implementation of study results. This article represents a consensus statement on the conduct and reporting of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology from veterinary pathologists and oncologists from around the world. These guidelines should be considered a recommendation based on the current state of knowledge in the field, and they will need to be continually reevaluated and revised as veterinary oncology continues to progress. As mentioned, these guidelines were developed through an initiative of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists\u2019 Oncology Committee, and they have been reviewed and endorsed by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association

Adjuvant Sirolimus Does Not Improve Outcome in Pet Dogs Receiving Standard-of-Care Therapy for Appendicular Osteosarcoma: A Prospective, Randomized Trial of 324 Dogs

PurposeThe mTOR pathway has been identified as a key nutrient signaling hub that participates in metastatic progression of high-grade osteosarcoma. Inhibition of mTOR signaling is biologically achievable with sirolimus, and might slow the outgrowth of distant metastases. In this study, pet dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma were leveraged as high-value biologic models for pediatric osteosarcoma, to assess mTOR inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for attenuating metastatic disease progression.Patients and methodsA total of 324 pet dogs diagnosed with treatment-naïve appendicular osteosarcoma were randomized into a two-arm, multicenter, parallel superiority trial whereby dogs received amputation of the affected limb, followed by adjuvant carboplatin chemotherapy ± oral sirolimus therapy. The primary outcome measure was disease-free interval (DFI), as assessed by serial physical and radiologic detection of emergent macroscopic metastases; secondary outcomes included overall 1- and 2-year survival rates, and sirolimus pharmacokinetic variables and their correlative relationship to adverse events and clinical outcomes.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the median DFI or overall survival between the two arms of this trial; the median DFI and survival for standard-of-care (SOC; defined as amputation and carboplatin therapy) dogs was 180 days [95% confidence interval (CI), 144-237] and 282 days (95% CI, 224-383) and for SOC + sirolimus dogs, it was 204 days (95% CI, 157-217) and 280 days (95% CI, 252-332), respectively.ConclusionsIn a population of pet dogs nongenomically segmented for predicted mTOR inhibition response, sequentially administered adjuvant sirolimus, although well tolerated when added to a backbone of therapy, did not extend DFI or survival in dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma