Search

Objectives: To test the performance of ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM; Vivascope 2500M‐G4), as compared to intra‐operative frozen section (IFS) analysis, to evaluate surgical margins during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), with final pathology as the reference standard. Methods: Overall, 54 margins in 45 patients treated with RARP were analysed with: (1) ex vivo FCM; (2) IFS analysis; and (3) final pathology. FCM margins were evaluated by two different pathologists (experienced [M.I.: 10 years] vs highly experienced [G.R.: >30 years]) as strongly negative, probably negative, doubtful, probably positive, or strongly positive. First, inter‐observer agreement (Cohen's κ) between pathologists was tested. Second, we reported the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ex vivo FCM. Finally, agreement between ex vivo FCM and IFS analysis (Cohen's κ) was reported. For all analyses, four combinations of FCM results were evaluated. Results: At ex vivo FCM, the inter‐observer agreement between pathologists ranged from moderate (κ = 0.74) to almost perfect (κ = 0.90), according to the four categories of results. Indeed, at ex vivo FCM, the highly experienced pathologist reached the best balance between sensitivity (70.5%) specificity (91.8%), PPV (80.0%) and NPV (87.1%). Conversely, on IFS analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were, respectively, 88.2% vs 100% vs 100% vs 94.8%. The agreement between the ex vivo FCM and IFS analyses ranged from moderate (κ = 0.62) to strong (κ = 0.86), according to the four categories of results. Conclusion: Evaluation of prostate margins at ex vivo FCM appears to be feasible and reliable. The agreement between readers encourages its widespread use in daily practice. Nevertheless, as of today, the performance of FCM seems to be sub‐par when compared to the established standard of care (IFS analysis). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer biomarker profiling predominantly relies on tissue testing (surgical and/or biopsy samples). However, the field of liquid biopsy, particularly the analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), has witnessed remarkable progress and continues to evolve rapidly. The incorporation of ctDNA‐based testing into clinical practice is creating new opportunities for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). ctDNA offers advantages over conventional tissue analyses, as it reflects tumour heterogeneity and enables multiple serial biopsies in a minimally invasive manner. Thus, it serves as a valuable complement to standard tumour tissues and, in certain instances, may even present a potential alternative approach. In the context of MBC, ctDNA testing proves highly informative in the detection of disease progression, monitoring treatment response, assessing actionable biomarkers, and identifying mechanisms of resistance. Nevertheless, ctDNA does exhibit inherent limitations, including its generally low abundance, necessitating timely blood samplings and rigorous management of the pre‐analytical phase. The development of highly sensitive assays and robust bioinformatic tools has paved the way for reliable ctDNA analyses. The time has now come to establish how ctDNA and tissue analyses can be effectively integrated into the diagnostic workflow of MBC to provide patients with the most comprehensive and accurate profiling. In this manuscript, we comprehensively analyse the current methodologies employed in ctDNA analysis and explore the potential benefits arising from the integration of tissue and ctDNA testing for patients diagnosed with MBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) of the breast is an extremely rare salivary gland‐type tumor characterized by epidermoid, basaloid, intermediate, and/or mucinous cells arranged in solid and cystic patterns. Despite their triple‐negative phenotype, breast MECs are generally considered low‐risk malignancies but their biology is largely unexplored; therefore, guidelines for clinical management are lacking. Here, we sought to characterize the molecular landscape of breast MECs. Thirteen cases were histologically reviewed, characterized for tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and were subjected to immunohistochemistry for programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1, clone 22C3), EGFR, and amphiregulin (AREG). Rearrangements in MAML2 and EWSR1 were investigated by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Targeted next‐generation sequencing of 161 genes was performed on eight cases. Most MECs had low histological grade (n = 10, 77%), with the presence of TILs (n = 9/12; 75%) and PD‐L1 combined positive score ranging from 10 to 20 (n = 4/6; 67%). All cases showed EGFR and AREG overexpression and were fusion negative. Enrichment of genetic alterations was observed in PI3K/AKT/mTOR and cell cycle regulation pathways, while only one case harbored TP53 mutations. This is the first study providing extensive molecular data on breast MECs and the largest collection of cases available to date in the literature. Breast MECs lack TP53 mutations found in high‐grade forms of triple‐negative breast cancers and MAML2 or EWSR1 rearrangements pathognomonic of salivary MECs. Triple‐negativity and PD‐L1 positivity suggest a window of opportunity for immunotherapy in these patients. The EGFR/AREG axis activation, coupled with the mutational patterns in PI3K/AKT/mTOR and cell cycle pathways warrants caution in considering MECs as low‐risk neoplasms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]