Early onset esophageal adenocarcinoma: A distinct molecular entity?

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is typically diagnosed in elderly with a median age of 68 years. The incidence of EAC has been rising over the last decades, also among young adults. The aim of the study was to investigate whether early onset EAC is a distinct molecular entity. To identify early onset EACs, the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA) was searched. Twenty-eight tumors of patients aged ≤40 years were selected and matched with 27 tumors of patients aged =68 years. DNA was isolated from surgically resected specimen and sequenced on the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine with the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Panel. No differences in mutational load between early onset and conventional EACs were observed (P=0.196). The most frequently mutated genes were TP53 (73%) and P16 (16%). Additional mutations in early onset EACs occurred exclusively in: APC, CDH1, CTNNB1, FGFR2, and STK11. In the conventional EACs additional mutations were exclusively identified in: ABL1, FBXW7, GNA11, GNAS, KRAS, MET, SMAD4, and VHL. Additional mutations besides TP53 and P16 seem to occur in different genes related to cell fate pathways for early onset EACs, while the additional mutations in conventional EACs are related to survival pathways

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 score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range. Conclusions: The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who - after structured assessments and group discussions - can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD

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

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

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