Search

Simple Summary: Prostate cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in men worldwide, with an estimated 1,276,000 new cases and 359,000 deaths in 2018. It is graded using the Gleason system into five grade groups of increasing tumor aggressiveness. However, diagnosis is hampered by a relatively high rate of inter- and intra-observer variability. Currently, the reduction of the perceived color variability is performed by physical quality controls, such as subjective assessment by visual inspection and comparison between laboratories. However, slides from different laboratories and even from different batches of the same laboratory may show significant color variations. The stain normalization procedure helps to standardize the stain color appearance of a digital image with respect to a reference image. In this study, we investigated the impact of the stain normalization process on prostate cancer biopsies from the pathologist's perspective. In clinical routine, the quality of whole-slide images plays a key role in the pathologist's diagnosis, and suboptimal staining may be a limiting factor. The stain normalization process helps to solve this problem through the standardization of color appearance of a source image with respect to a target image with optimal chromatic features. The analysis is focused on the evaluation of the following parameters assessed by two experts on original and normalized slides: (i) perceived color quality, (ii) diagnosis for the patient, (iii) diagnostic confidence and (iv) time required for diagnosis. Results show a statistically significant increase in color quality in the normalized images for both experts (p < 0.0001). Regarding prostate cancer assessment, the average times for diagnosis are significantly lower for normalized images than original ones (first expert: 69.9 s vs. 77.9 s with p < 0.0001; second expert: 37.4 s vs. 52.7 s with p < 0.0001), and at the same time, a statistically significant increase in diagnostic confidence is proven. The improvement of poor-quality images and greater clarity of diagnostically important details in normalized slides demonstrate the potential of stain normalization in the routine practice of prostate cancer assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Successful implementation of whole slide imaging (WSI) for routine clinical practice has been accomplished in only a few pathology laboratories worldwide. We report the transition to an effective and complete digital surgical pathology workflow in the pathology laboratory at Cannizzaro Hospital in Catania, Italy. Methods: All (100%) permanent histopathology glass slides were digitized at ×20 using Aperio AT2 scanners. Compatible stain and scanning slide racks were employed to streamline operations. eSlide Manager software was bidirectionally interfaced with the anatomic pathology laboratory information system. Virtual slide trays connected to the two-dimensional (2D) barcode tracking system allowed pathologists to confirm that they were correctly assigned slides and that all tissues on these glass slides were scanned. Results: Over 115,000 glass slides were digitized with a scan fail rate of around 1%. Drying glass slides before scanning minimized them sticking to scanner racks. Implementation required introduction of a 2D barcode tracking system and modification of histology workflow processes. Conclusion: Our experience indicates that effective adoption of WSI for primary diagnostic use was more dependent on optimizing preimaging variables and integration with the laboratory information system than on information technology infrastructure and ensuring pathologist buy-in. Implementation of digital pathology for routine practice not only leveraged the benefits of digital imaging but also creates an opportunity for establishing standardization of workflow processes in the pathology laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A meeting among expert pathologists was held in 2019 in Rome to verify the results of the previous harmonization efforts on the PD-L1 immunohistochemical testing by scoring a representative series of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) digital slides. The current paper shows the results of this digital experimental meeting and the expertise achieved by the community of Italian pathologists. PD-L1 protein expression was determined using tumor proportion score (TPS), i.e., the percentage of viable tumor cells showing partial or complete membrane staining at any intensity. The gold standard was defined as the final PD-L1 score formulated by a panel of seven lung committed pathologists. PD-L1 status was clustered in three categories, namely negative (TPS < 1), low (TPS 1–49%), and high (TPS ≥ 50%). In 23 cases (71.9%) PD-L1 staining was performed using the companion diagnostic 22C3 pharmDx kit on Dako Autostainer, while in nine (28.1%) cases it was performed using the SP263 Ventana kit on BenchMark platform. A complete PD-L1 scoring agreement between the panel of experts and the participants was reached in 57.1% of cases, whereas a minor disagreement in 16.1% of cases was recorded. Italian pathologists performed best in strong positive cases (i.e., tumor proportion score TPS > 50%), whereas only 10.8% of disagreement with the gold standard was observed, and 55.6% regarded a single challenging case. The worst performance was achieved in the negative cases, with 32.0% disagreement. A significant difference resulted from the analysis of the data separated by the different clones used: 22.3% and 38.1% disagreement (p = 0.01) was found in the group of cases analyzed by 22C3 and SP263 antibody clones, respectively. In conclusion, this workshop record proposed the application of a digital pathology platform to share controversial cases in educational meetings as an alternative possibility for improving the interpretation and reporting of specific histological tools. Due to the crucial role of PD-L1 TPS for the selection of patients for immunotherapy, the identification of unconventional approaches as virtual slides to focus experiences and give more detailed practical verifications of the standard quality reached may be a considerable option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To date, precision medicine has revolutionized the clinical management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). International societies approved a rapidly improved mandatory testing biomarkers panel for the clinical stratification of NSCLC patients, but harmonized procedures are required to optimize the diagnostic workflow. In this context a knowledge-based database (Biomarkers ATLAS, https://biomarkersatlas.com/) was developed by a supervising group of expert pathologists and thoracic oncologists collecting updated clinical and molecular records from about 80 referral Italian institutions. Here, we audit molecular and clinical data from n = 1100 NSCLC patients collected from January 2019 to December 2020., Methods: Clinical and molecular records from NSCLC patients were retrospectively collected from the two coordinating institutions (University of Turin and University of Naples). Molecular biomarkers (KRAS, EGFR, BRAF, ROS1, ALK, RET, NTRK, MET) and clinical data (sex, age, histological type, smoker status, PD-L1 expression, therapy) were collected and harmonized., Results: Clinical and molecular data from 1100 (n = 552 mutated and n = 548 wild-type) NSCLC patients were systematized and annotated in the ATLAS knowledge-database. Molecular records from biomarkers testing were matched with main patients' clinical variables., Conclusions: Biomarkers ATLAS (https://biomarkersatlas.com/) represents a unique, easily managing, and reliable diagnostic tool aiming to integrate clinical records with molecular alterations of NSCLC patients in the real-word Italian scenario., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Umberto Malapelle has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis and Hedera for work performed. Francesco Passiglia Francesco declared consultant/advisory fee from Astrazaneca, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, Brystol Myer Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohne, Roche, Beigene, Novartis, Thermofisher Scientific. Pasquale Pisapia reports speaking fees from Novartis outside the submitted work. Diego Cortinovis has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Advisory Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Jannsen, Sanofi Genzyme.Domenico Galetta has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Roche for work performed outside of the current study. Paolo Graziano has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim unrelated to the current work. Fabio Pagni has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Novartis, Roche, MSD, Amgen, GSK and AstraZeneca, for work performed outside of the current study. Giulia Pasello has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Jannsen, AstraZeneca, Roche unrelated to the current work. Sara Pilotto reports personal fees (invited speaker, advisory board) from AstraZeneca, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, AMGEN, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Roche; and research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche outside the submitted work. Marcello Tiseo reports personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Merck, Sanofi. M.T. He received institutional research grants from Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim un related to the current work. Luisella Righi declared consultant/advisory fee from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim. Giancarlo Troncone reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Roche, MSD, Pfizer and Bayer, unrelated to the current work. Silvia Novello reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, BMS, Takeda, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, unrelated to the current work., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Molecular biomarker testing is increasingly becoming standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tissue and liquid biopsy-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) is now highly recommended and has become an integral part of the routine management of advanced NSCLC patients. This highly sensitive approach can simultaneously and efficiently detect multiple biomarkers even in scant samples. However full optimization of NGS in clinical practice requires accurate reporting and interpretation of NGS findings. Indeed, as the number of NSCLC biomarkers continues to grow, clinical reporting of NGS data is becoming increasingly complex. In this scenario, achieving standardization, simplification, and improved readability of NGS reports is key to ensuring timely and appropriate treatment decisions. In an effort to address the complexity and lengthy reporting of NGS mutation results, an Italian group of 14 healthcare professionals involved in NSCLC management convened in 2023 to address the content, structure, and ease-of-use of NGS reporting practices and proposed a standard report template for clinical use This article presents the key discussion points addressed by the Italian working group and describes the essential elements of the report template., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Umberto Malapelle has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis and Hedera unrelated to the current work. Fabio Pagni received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from, MSD, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, unrelated to the current work. Elena Guerini Rocco has relevant relationship (advisory fees, honoraria, travel accommodation and expenses, grants and non-financial support) with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific unrelated to the current work. Giulia Pasello has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Amgen; Astrazeneca; BMS; Lilly; MSD; Roche; Jansenn Research support: Astrazeneca; Roche unrelated to the current work. Giuseppe Perrone has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Diatech Pharmacogenomics, Eli Lilly, Incyte, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche unrelated to the current work. Francesco Pepe has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Menarini Stemline unrelated to the current work. Giancarlo Pruneri has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Lilly, Roche Foundation One, Bayer, Novartis unrelated to the current work. Giancarlo Troncone reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Roche, MSD, Pfizer and Bayer, unrelated to the current work. Silvia Novello reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, BMS, Takeda, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, unrelated to the current work. No relevant conflict of interest declared by Alessandro Delle Donne, Filippo Fraggetta, Simona Vatrano, Sandro Pignata, Carmine Pinto, Antonio Russo, Hector J Soto Parra, Stefania Vallone, Antonio Marchetti related to the current work. No relevant conflict of interest declared by Alessandro Delle Donne, Filippo Fraggetta, Simona Vatrano, Sandro Pignata, Carmine Pinto, Antonio Russo, Hector J Soto Parra, Stefania Vallone, Antonio Marchetti related to the current work., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)