The 1000 Mitoses Project : A Consensus-Based International Collaborative Study on Mitotic Figures Classification

Introduction. The identification of mitotic figures is essential for the diagnosis, grading, and classification of various different tumors. Despite its importance, there is a paucity of literature reporting the consistency in interpreting mitotic figures among pathologists. This study leverages publicly accessible datasets and social media to recruit an international group of pathologists to score an image database of more than 1000 mitotic figures collectively. Materials and Methods. Pathologists were instructed to randomly select a digital slide from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets and annotate 10-20 mitotic figures within a 2 mm2 area. The first 1010 submitted mitotic figures were used to create an image dataset, with each figure transformed into an individual tile at 40x magnification. The dataset was redistributed to all pathologists to review and determine whether each tile constituted a mitotic figure. Results. Overall pathologists had a median agreement rate of 80.2% (range 42.0%-95.7%). Individual mitotic figure tiles had a median agreement rate of 87.1% and a fair inter-rater agreement across all tiles (kappa = 0.284). Mitotic figures in prometaphase had lower percentage agreement rates compared to other phases of mitosis. Conclusion. This dataset stands as the largest international consensus study for mitotic figures to date and can be utilized as a training set for future studies. The agreement range reflects a spectrum of criteria that pathologists use to decide what constitutes a mitotic figure, which may have potential implications in tumor diagnostics and clinical management.Peer reviewe

Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background. After the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have un- dergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with differ- ent surgical approaches. Methods. A systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2. Results. The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602–1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467–1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331–1.407; p = 0.630), respectively. Conclusion. There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment

Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background. After the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have un- dergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with differ- ent surgical approaches. Methods. A systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2. Results. The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602–1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467–1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331–1.407; p = 0.630), respectively. Conclusion. There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment