Significant variation in histopathological assessment of endoscopic resections for Barrett's neoplasia suggests need for consensus reporting:propositions for improvement

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an important diagnostic step in management of patients with early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. Based on ER specimens, an accurate histological diagnosis can be made, which guides further treatment. Based on depth of tumor invasion, differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, the risk of lymph node metastases and local recurrence is judged to be low enough to justify endoscopic management, or high enough to warrant invasive surgical esophagectomy. Adequate assessment of these histological risk factors is therefore of the utmost importance. Aim of this study was to assess pathologist concordance on these histological features on ER specimens and evaluate causes of discrepancy. Of 62 challenging ER cases, one representative H&E slide and matching desmin and endothelial marker were digitalized and independently assessed by 13 dedicated GI pathologists from 8 Dutch BE expert centers, using an online assessment module. For each histological feature, concordance and discordance were calculated. Clinically relevant discordances were observed for all criteria. Grouping depth of invasion categories according to expanded endoscopic treatment criteria (T1a and T1sm1 vs. T1sm2/3), ≥1 pathologist was discrepant in 21% of cases, increasing to 45% when grouping diagnoses according to the traditional T1a versus T1b classification. For differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, discordances were substantial with 27%, 42%, and 32% of cases having ≥1 discrepant pathologist, respectively. In conclusion, histological assessment of ER specimens of early BE cancer by dedicated GI pathologists shows significant discordances for all relevant histological features. We present propositions to improve definitions of diagnostic criteria

CEA, EpCAM, alpha v beta 6 and uPAR expression in rectal cancer patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy

Rectal cancer patients with a complete response after neoadjuvant therapy can be monitored with a watch-and-wait strategy. However, regrowth rates indicate that identification of patients with a pathological complete response (pCR) remains challenging. Targeted near-infrared fluorescence endoscopy is a potential tool to improve response evaluation. Promising tumor targets include carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), integrin alpha v beta 6, and urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR). To investigate the applicability of these targets, we analyzed protein expression by immunohistochemistry and quantified these by a total immunostaining score (TIS) in tissue of rectal cancer patients with a pCR. CEA, EpCAM, alpha v beta 6, and uPAR expression in the diagnostic biopsy was high (TIS > 6) in, respectively, 100%, 100%, 33%, and 46% of cases. CEA and EpCAM expressions were significantly higher in the diagnostic biopsy compared with the corresponding tumor bed (p < 0.01). CEA, EpCAM, alpha v beta 6, and uPAR expressions were low (TIS < 6) in the tumor bed in, respectively, 93%, 95%, 85%, and 62.5% of cases. Immunohistochemical evaluation shows that CEA and EpCAM could be suitable targets for response evaluation after neoadjuvant treatment, since expression of these targets in the primary tumor bed is low compared with the diagnostic biopsy and adjacent pre-existent rectal mucosa in more than 90% of patients with a pCR.Surgical oncolog

Performance of gastrointestinal pathologists within a national digital review panel for Barrett's oesophagus in the Netherlands: Results of 80 prospective biopsy reviews

Aims: The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight 'core' pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel. Methods: Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists. Results: After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark scor

Lymphovascular invasion quantification could improve risk prediction of lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma

AIM: To quantify lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and to assess the prognostic value in patients with pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this nationwide, retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they were treated with surgery or endoscopic resection for pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. Primary endpoint was the presence of metastases, lymph node metastases, or distant metastases, in surgical resection specimens or during follow‐up. A prediction model to identify risk factors for metastases was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: 248 patients were included. LVI was distributed as follows: no LVI (n = 196; 79.0%), 1 LVI focus (n = 16; 6.5%), 2–3 LVI foci (n = 21; 8.5%) and ≥4 LVI foci (n = 15; 6.0%). Seventy‐eight patients had metastases. The risk of metastases was increased for tumors with 2–3 LVI foci [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10–5.47] and ≥4 LVI foci (SHR 3.81, 95% CI 2.37–6.10). The prediction model demonstrated a good discriminative ability (c‐statistic 0.81). CONCLUSION: The risk of metastases is higher when more LVI foci are present. Quantification of LVI could be useful for a more precise risk estimation of metastases. This model needs to be externally validated before implementation into clinical practice

Individual risk calculator to predict lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma:a multicenter cohort study

Background Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is possible after endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that estimates the individual risk of metastases in patients with pT1b EAC. Methods A nationwide, retrospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients with pT1b EAC treated with endoscopic resection and/or surgery between 1989 and 2016. The primary end point was presence of LNM in surgical resection specimens or detection of metastases during follow-up. All resection specimens were histologically reassessed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists. Subdistribution hazard regression analysis was used to develop the prediction model. The discriminative ability of this model was assessed using the c-statistic. Results 248 patients with pT1b EAC were included. Metastases were seen in 78 patients, and the 5-year cumulative incidence was 30.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 25.1 %-36.8 %). The risk of metastases increased with submucosal invasion depth (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.08, 95 %CI 1.02-1.14, for every increase of 500 μm), lymphovascular invasion (SHR 2.95, 95 %CI 1.95-4.45), and for larger tumors (SHR 1.23, 95 %CI 1.10-1.37, for every increase of 10 mm). The model demonstrated good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81, 95 %CI 0.75-0.86). Conclusions A third of patients with pT1b EAC experienced metastases within 5 years. The probability of developing post-resection metastases was estimated with a personalized predicted risk score incorporating tumor invasion depth, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion. This model requires external validation before implementation into clinical practice