Search

* Context.--Digital pathology using whole slide images has been recently approved to support primary diagnosis in clinical surgical pathology practices. Here we describe a novel imaging method, fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging, that can capture the surface of fresh tissue without requiring prior fixation, paraffin embedding, tissue sectioning, or staining. Objective.--To compare the ability of pathologists to evaluate direct-to-digital images with standard pathology preparations. Design.--One hundred surgical pathology samples were obtained. Samples were first digitally imaged, then processed for standard histologic examination on 4-im hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections and digitally scanned. The resulting digital images from both digital and standard scan sets were viewed by each of 4 reading pathologists. The data set consisted of 100 reference diagnoses and 800 study pathologist reads. Each study read was compared to the reference diagnosis, and also compared to that reader's diagnosis across both modalities. Results.--The overall agreement rate, across 800 reads, was 97.9%. This consisted of 400 digital reads at 97.0% versus reference and 400 standard reads versus reference at 98.8%. Minor discordances (defined as alternative diagnoses without clinical treatment or outcome implications) were 6.1% overall, 7.2% for digital, and 5.0% for standard. Conclusions.--Pathologists can provide accurate diagnoses from fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging slide-free images. Concordance and discordance rates are similar to published rates for comparisons of whole slide imaging to standard light microscopy of glass slides for primary diagnosis. It may be possible, therefore, to develop a slide-free, nondestructive approach for primary pathology diagnosis., While in vivo methods for disease detection and classification, including radiology and liquid biopsy, continue to improve with respect to spatial resolution (radiology) and molecular information, they have not, to [...]

Context.—Digital pathology using whole slide images has been recently approved for primary diagnosis in clinical surgical pathology practices. Here we describe a novel imaging method, fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging, that can capture the surface of fresh tissue without requiring prior fixation, paraffin embedding, tissue sectioning, or staining.Objective.—To compare the ability of pathologists to evaluate direct-to-digital images with standard pathology preparations.Design.—One hundred surgical pathology samples were obtained. Samples were first digitally imaged, then processed for standard histologic examination on 4-μm hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections and digitally scanned. The resulting digital images from both digital and standard scan sets were viewed by each of 4 reading pathologists. The data set consisted of 100 reference diagnoses and 800 study pathologist reads. Each study read was compared to the reference diagnosis, and also compared to that reader's diagnosis across both modalities.Results.—The overall agreement rate, across 800 reads, was 97.9%. This consisted of 400 digital reads at 97.0% versus reference and 400 standard reads versus reference at 98.8%. Minor discordances (defined as alternative diagnoses without clinical treatment or outcome implications) were 6.1% overall, 7.2% for digital, and 5.0% for standard.Conclusions.—Pathologists can provide accurate diagnoses from fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging slide-free images. Concordance and discordance rates are similar to published rates for comparisons of whole slide imaging to standard light microscopy of glass slides for primary diagnosis. It may be possible, therefore, to develop a slide-free, nondestructive approach for primary pathology diagnosis.

Ki67 has potential clinical importance in breast cancer but has yet to see broad acceptance due to inter-laboratory variability. Here we tested an open source and calibrated automated digital image analysis (DIA) platform to: (i) investigate the comparability of Ki67 measurement across corresponding core biopsy and resection specimen cases, and (ii) assess section to section differences in Ki67 scoring. Two sets of 60 previously stained slides containing 30 core-cut biopsy and 30 corresponding resection specimens from 30 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients were sent to 17 participating labs for automated assessment of average Ki67 expression. The blocks were centrally cut and immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67 (MIB-1 antibody). The QuPath platform was used to evaluate tumoral Ki67 expression. Calibration of the DIA method was performed as in published studies. A guideline for building an automated Ki67 scoring algorithm was sent to participating labs. Very high correlation and no systematic error (p = 0.08) was found between consecutive Ki67 IHC sections. Ki67 scores were higher for core biopsy slides compared to paired whole sections from resections (p ≤ 0.001; median difference: 5.31%). The systematic discrepancy between core biopsy and corresponding whole sections was likely due to pre-analytical factors (tissue handling, fixation). Therefore, Ki67 IHC should be tested on core biopsy samples to best reflect the biological status of the tumor.

Context.--Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.Objective.--To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.Data Sources.--Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest and expertise in the field contributed to this update. Reference material included up-to-date, peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.Conclusions.--There was discussion and consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) recognition of the key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid MM, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of mM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels employed is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Depending on the morphology, immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers for mesothelial differentiation and for lesions considered in the differential diagnosis. Immunohistochemical markers should have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic and membranous markers). Selected molecular markers are now being used to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. These guidelines are meant to be a practical diagnostic reference for the pathologist; however, some new pathologic predictors of prognosis and response to therapy are also included.(Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:89-108; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0124-RA), The pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) continues to evolve and be refined as more antibodies and molecular tests become available for general use. This is especially applicable to distinguishing [...]

Context.--There are a number of critical factors that can lead to incorrect results if the diagnostic pathologist performing immunohistochemistry is unaware of, or not vigilant about, their influence. Objective.--To highlight 3 arenas in which errors may be introduced. Data Sources.--For choosing the correct primary antibody, selection of the most appropriate antibodies for a given clinical application can be aided by obtaining information from the vendor; however, this can yield incomplete information. There are a number of online databases that have comparisons of antibodies from different vendors, particularly with respect to their use and properties. Reading the published literature can assist in this process, particularly with respect to determining antibody sensitivity and specificity, but it is a daunting task to keep up with all of the immunohistochemistry-related papers published. Finally, Web sites of a number of quality assurance organizations are accessible and can provide a wealth of information comparing the 'real world' performance characteristics of different antibodies to the same target protein. False-positive signals can result from a number of factors, including the use of inappropriately high antibody concentration, and 'pseudospecific' signal that is in the wrong compartment of the cell. False-negative signal can result from factors such as use of a nonoptimized epitope retrieval method. It is critical that epitope retrieval methods be optimized for each antibody employed in the laboratory. Conclusions.--By paying attention to these potential problems, the 'black box' of diagnostic immunohistochemistry can be made more transparent. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140:893-898; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0119-RA), The great British science fiction writer, inventor, and futurist Arthur C. Clarke noted that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' (1) Immunohistochemistry (IHC), a technique invented in the [...]

Context.--Identification of the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary using immunohistochemistry is a frequent requirement of anatomic pathologists. Diagnostic accuracy is crucial, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies and smaller sample sizes. Objectives.--To provide practical guidance and suggestions for classifying carcinoma of unknown primary using both proven and new antibodies, as well as targeting panels based on integration of morphologic and clinical features. Data Sources.--Literature review, the authors' practice experience, and authors' research. Conclusions.--With well-performed and interpreted immunohistochemistry panels, anatomic pathologists can successfully identify the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary. It is crucial to understand not only the diagnostic uses of the many available antibodies but also the potential limits and pitfalls. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140:508-523; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0173-CP), It is estimated that approximately 4% of all patients with cancer present with carcinomas of unknown primary (CUPs), representing a higher incidence than known malignancies such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma or [...]

Aims: The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections. Methods and results: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot‐spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799–0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI ≥ 0.8), while the ICC for the hot‐spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74–0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot‐spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot‐spot methods, respectively. Conclusions: The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. The time taken for scoring by either method is practical using counting software we are making publicly available. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the reproducibility between laboratories further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pathological analysis of the nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has multiple potential roles in breast and other cancers. However, clinical utility of the immunohistochemical (IHC) assay for Ki67 immunohistochemistry has been hampered by unacceptable between-laboratory analytical variability. The International Ki67 Working Group has conducted a series of studies aiming to decrease this variability and improve the evaluation of Ki67. This study tries to assess whether acceptable performance can be achieved on prestained core-cut biopsies using a standardized scoring method. Sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancer core biopsies were centrally stained for Ki67 and circulated among 22 laboratories in 11 countries. Each laboratory scored Ki67 using three methods: (1) global (4 fields of 100 cells each); (2) weighted global (same as global but weighted by estimated percentages of total area); and (3) hot-spot (single field of 500 cells). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a measure of interlaboratory agreement, for the unweighted global method (0.87; 95% credible interval (CI): 0.81-0.93) met the prespecified success criterion for scoring reproducibility, whereas that for the weighted global (0.87; 95% CI: 0.7999-0.93) and hot-spot methods (0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92) marginally failed to do so. The unweighted global assessment of Ki67 IHC analysis on core biopsies met the prespecified criterion of success for scoring reproducibility. A few cases still showed large scoring discrepancies. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the agreement between laboratories further. Additional evaluations are needed to assess staining variability and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of samples., Competing Interests: J.M.S.B. has consulted for Insight Genetics and BioNTech and received compensation. T.O.N. has consulted for Nanostring and received compensation. C.K.O. has consulted for Astra Zeneca, Genentech and NanoString and received compensation. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Current standard of care requires that HER2 gene testing be performed on all newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers in order to determine eligibility for anti-HER2 antibody therapy and should be performed in accordance with current ASCO-CAP guidelines (Hammond et al., J Clin Oncol 29(15):e458, 2011; Wolff et al., J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997-4013, 2013). Here we describe a HER2 FISH methodology to evaluate HER2 gene status in FFPE breast tumor specimens.