Spiral arteries in second trimester of pregnancy : when is it possible to define expected physiological remodeling as abnormal?

Q2Q2After undergoing remodeling, uterine spiral arteries turn into wide, flexible tubes, with low resistance. If remodeling does not occur, spontaneous abortions, intrauterine growth restriction, and pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders can ensue. Arterial transformation begins at a very early gestational stage; however, second quarter pregnancy histopathological samples have yet to pinpoint the exact moment when abnormal remodeling transpires. We examined 100 samples, taken from consecutive abortions at 12–23 gestational weeks. Following Pijnenborg and Smith guidelines, blinded pathologists analyzed clinical data on remod eling stages. Lab results showed that arterial remodeling is not synchronic in all vessels; a single sample can include various remodeling stages; neither is remodeling homogenous in a single vessel: change may be occurring in one part of the vessel, but not in another. To our knowledge, no one has published this finding. In the examined age group, Smith stage IV predominates; around week 14, substantial muscle and endothelium loss takes place. After week 17, endovascular or fibrin trophoblast does not usually occur. Although scant consensus exists on what defines preeclampsia etiology, it is clear that it involves abnormal remodeling in decidua vessels. Improved understanding requires further knowledge on both the physiological and pathological aspects of the remodeling process. We observed that muscle and endothelial tissues disappear from weeks 14–17, after which time reendothelization predominates. We list the expected proportion of spiral artery changes for each gestational age which, to date, has not been available.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-425XN/

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only similar to 60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey (R). Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only similar to 60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey (R). Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis

Results of a worldwide survey on the currently used histopathological diagnostic criteria for invasive lobular breast cancer

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) represents the second most common subtype of breast cancer (BC), accounting for up to 15% of all invasive BC. Loss of cell adhesion due to functional inactivation of E-cadherin is the hallmark of ILC. Although the current world health organization (WHO) classification for diagnosing ILC requires the recognition of the dispersed or linear non-cohesive growth pattern, it is not mandatory to demonstrate E-cadherin loss by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Recent results of central pathology review of two large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated relative overdiagnosis of ILC, as only ~60% of the locally diagnosed ILCs were confirmed by central pathology. To understand the possible underlying reasons of this discrepancy, we undertook a worldwide survey on the current practice of diagnosing BC as ILC. A survey was drafted by a panel of pathologists and researchers from the European lobular breast cancer consortium (ELBCC) using the online tool SurveyMonkey®. Various parameters such as indications for IHC staining, IHC clones, and IHC staining procedures were questioned. Finally, systematic reporting of non-classical ILC variants were also interrogated. This survey was sent out to pathologists worldwide and circulated from December 14, 2020 until July, 1 2021. The results demonstrate that approximately half of the institutions use E-cadherin expression loss by IHC as an ancillary test to diagnose ILC and that there is a great variability in immunostaining protocols. This might cause different staining results and discordant interpretations. As ILC-specific therapeutic and diagnostic avenues are currently explored in the context of clinical trials, it is of importance to improve standardization of histopathologic diagnosis of ILC diagnosis.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe