Reporting trends, practices, and resource utilization in neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate gland: a survey among thirty-nine genitourinary pathologists

Background: Neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland ranges from clinically insignificant neuroendocrine differentiation detected with markers in an otherwise conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma to a lethal high-grade small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The concept of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic adenocarcinoma has gained considerable importance due to its prognostic and therapeutic ramifications and pathologists play a pivotal role in its recognition. However, its awareness, reporting, and resource utilization practice patterns among pathologists are largely unknown. Methods: Representative examples of different spectrums of neuroendocrine differentiation along with a detailed questionnaire were shared among 39 urologic pathologists using the survey monkey software. Participants were specifically questioned about the use and awareness of the 2016 WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate, understanding of the clinical significance of each entity, and use of different immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. De-identified respondent data were analyzed. Results: A vast majority (90%) of the participants utilize IHC markers to confirm the diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. A majority (87%) of the respondents were in agreement regarding the utilization of type of IHC markers for small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma for which 85% of the pathologists agreed that determination of the site of origin of a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma is not critical, as these are treated similarly. In the setting of mixed carcinomas, 62% of respondents indicated that they provide quantification and grading of the acinar component. There were varied responses regarding the prognostic implication of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and for Paneth cell-like differentiation. The classification of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was highly varied, with only 38% agreement in the illustrated case. Finally, despite the recommendation not to perform neuroendocrine markers in the absence of morphologic evidence of neuroendocrine differentiation, 62% would routinely utilize IHC in the work-up of a Gleason score 5 + 5 = 10 acinar adenocarcinoma and its differentiation from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Conclusion: There is a disparity in the practice utilization patterns among the urologic pathologists with regard to diagnosing high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma and in understanding the clinical significance of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation. There seems to have a trend towards overutilization of IHC to determine neuroendocrine differentiation in the absence of neuroendocrine features on morphology. The survey results suggest a need for further refinement and development of standardized guidelines for the classification and reporting of neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland

Conservative surgery in cancer of the stomach and the current status of lymph node dissections

Partial gastrectomy, as described by Polya in 1911 has been practised widely.1 However, a recommendation for more radical operation was given by McNeer et al2 after their review of 92 postmortem examinations following partial gastrectomy for gastric cancer. In half the cases they found recurrence in the gastric remnant and therefore advised radical total gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy and splenectomy. However, a study at Mayo Clinic analysing the long-term results following total gastrectomy in 170 cases, in which 78 % had involved nodes, showed a five-year survival of only 18 %.3 Only 10 % of the patients with a malignant lesion in the distal part of the stomach lived for five years. These results indicated that total gastrectomy was not the operation of choice for all gastric carcinomas

Correlation of ROS1 (D4D6) Immunohistochemistry with ROS1 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Assay in a Contemporary Cohort of Pulmonary Adenocarcinomas

Abstract Sambit K. Mohanty Objective Repressor of Silencing (ROS1) gene rearrangement in the lung adenocarcinomas is one of the targetable mutually exclusive genomic alteration. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), next-generation sequencing, and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays are generally used to detect ROS1 gene alterations. We evaluated the correlation between ROS1 IHC and FISH analysis considering FISH as the gold standard method to determine the utility of IHC as a screening method for lung adenocarcinoma. Materials and Methods A total of 374 advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients were analyzed for ROS1 IHC on Ventana Benchmark XT platform using D4D6 rabbit monoclonal antibody. FISH assay was performed in parallel in all these cases using the Vysis ROS1 Break Apart FISH probe. Statistical Analysis The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were evaluated. Results A total of 17 tumors were positive either by IHC or FISH analysis or both (true positive). Four tumors were positive by IHC (H-score range: 120–270), while negative on FISH analysis (false positive by IHC). One tumor was IHC negative, but positive by FISH analysis (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 94.4% (confidence interval [CI]: 72.71–99.86%), 63.6% (CI: 30.79–89.07%), 2.6 (CI: 1.18–5.72), 0.09 (CI: 0.01–0.62), 80.95% (CI: 65.86–90.35%), 87.5% (CI: 49.74–98.02%), and 82.76%, respectively. Conclusion ROS1 IHC has high sensitivity at a cost of lower specificity for the detection of ROS1 gene rearrangement. All IHC positive cases should undergo a confirmatory FISH test as this testing algorithm stands as a reliable and economic tool to screen ROS1 rearrangement in lung adenocarcinomas

Estimation of tuberculosis incidence at subnational level using three methods to monitor progress towards ending TB in India, 2015–2020

Objectives We verified subnational (state/union territory (UT)/district) claims of achievements in reducing tuberculosis (TB) incidence in 2020 compared with 2015, in India.Design A community-based survey, analysis of programme data and anti-TB drug sales and utilisation data.Setting National TB Elimination Program and private TB treatment settings in 73 districts that had filed a claim to the Central TB Division of India for progress towards TB-free status.Participants Each district was divided into survey units (SU) and one village/ward was randomly selected from each SU. All household members in the selected village were interviewed. Sputum from participants with a history of anti-TB therapy (ATT), those currently experiencing chest symptoms or on ATT were tested using Xpert/Rif/TrueNat. The survey continued until 30 Mycobacterium tuberculosis cases were identified in a district.Outcome measures We calculated a direct estimate of TB incidence based on incident cases identified in the survey. We calculated an under-reporting factor by matching these cases within the TB notification system. The TB notification adjusted for this factor was the estimate by the indirect method. We also calculated TB incidence from drug sale data in the private sector and drug utilisation data in the public sector. We compared the three estimates of TB incidence in 2020 with TB incidence in 2015.Results The estimated direct incidence ranged from 19 (Purba Medinipur, West Bengal) to 1457 (Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya) per 100 000 population. Indirect estimates of incidence ranged between 19 (Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli) and 788 (Dumka, Jharkhand) per 100 000 population. The incidence using drug sale data ranged from 19 per 100 000 population in Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli to 651 per 100 000 population in Centenary, Maharashtra.Conclusion TB incidence in 1 state, 2 UTs and 35 districts had declined by at least 20% since 2015. Two districts in India were declared TB free in 2020