Training and accreditation standards for pathologists undertaking clinical trial work

The role of the pathologist in the design and conducting of biomarker-driven clinical trials in cancer: position paper of the European Society of Pathology

Clinical trials in oncology are important tools to identify and establish new effective drugs for cancer treatment. Since the development of the concept of precision oncology, a huge number of multi-centric biomarker-driven clinical trials have been performed and promoted by either academic institutions or pharmaceutical companies. In this scenario, the role of pathologists is essential in multiple aspects, with new challenges that should be addressed. In this position paper of the European Society of Pathology, the role of pathologists as contributors to the design of the clinical trial, as local collaborators, or as members of central review laboratories is discussed. Moreover, the paper emphasizes the important role of pathologists in guiding methods and criteria of tissue biomarker testing in the biomarker-driven clinical trials. The paper also addresses issues regarding quality control, training, and the possible role of digital pathology.

Histopathological Images Analysis and Predictive Modeling Implemented in Digital Pathology-Current Affairs and Perspectives

In modern clinical practice, digital pathology has an essential role, being a technological necessity for the activity in the pathological anatomy laboratories. The development of information technology has majorly facilitated the management of digital images and their sharing for clinical use; the methods to analyze digital histopathological images, based on artificial intelligence techniques and specific models, quantify the required information with significantly higher consistency and precision compared to that provided by optical microscopy. In parallel, the unprecedented advances in machine learning facilitate, through the synergy of artificial intelligence and digital pathology, the possibility of diagnosis based on image analysis, previously limited only to certain specialties. Therefore, the integration of digital images into the study of pathology, combined with advanced algorithms and computer-assisted diagnostic techniques, extends the boundaries of the pathologist's vision beyond the microscopic image and allows the specialist to use and integrate his knowledge and experience adequately. We conducted a search in PubMed on the topic of digital pathology and its applications, to quantify the current state of knowledge. We found that computer-aided image analysis has a superior potential to identify, extract and quantify features in more detail compared to the human pathologist's evaluating possibilities; it performs tasks that exceed its manual capacity, and can produce new diagnostic algorithms and prediction models applicable in translational research that are able to identify new characteristics of diseases based on changes at the cellular and molecular level.

Guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-Path extension

The 2013 SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the minimum content to be included in a clinical trial protocol. Assessment of biospecimens is often required for trial eligibility or as part of an outcome evaluation, and precision molecular approaches are increasingly used in trial design. However, cellular and molecular pathology practices within trials have not been codified or formalised. We developed international consensus reporting guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-Path extension) using an international Delphi process, which assesses candidate items generated from a previous systematic review, followed by an expert consensus meeting. 74 individuals from five continents responded, including clinicians, statisticians, laboratory scientists, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, and regulators. The SPIRIT-Path guidelines recommend 14 additional items (seven extensions to the SPIRIT checklist and seven elaborations) that should be addressed in trial protocols containing pathology content, alongside the SPIRIT 2013 Statement items. SPIRIT-Path recommends that protocols should document the individuals, processes, and standards for all cellular and molecular pathology components of the trial, including all stages of the specimen pathway and any digital pathology methods, with specific consideration of the value of trial data and biological tissues for additional translational studies.

Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-aggregation

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology-related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE-GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation - Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta-aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full-text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology-related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology-related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology-related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.

Low-contact and high-interconnectivity pathology (LC&HI Path): post-COVID19-pandemic practice of pathology

The COVID-19 pandemic situation may be viewed as an opportunity to accelerate some of the ongoing transformations in modern pathology. This refers primarily to the digitalisation of the practice of tissue and cellular pathology diagnostics. However, it is also an opportunity to analyse the modus operandi of a discipline that has been practised in a similar manner for more than 100 years. The challenge is to define the next generation of interconnectivity tools that would be necessary to achieve a new operational model that, while ensuring low face-to-face interaction between the main players of the diagnostic pipeline, allows maximum interconnectivity to serve our patients and the immediate teaching and research needs associated with clinical tissue/cellular samples. This viewpoint aims to describe what this new paradigm, a low-contact and high-interconnectivity pathology (LC&HC Path) operation, may require in the near future.

The important role of the histopathologist in clinical trials: challenges and approaches to tackle them

High-quality histopathology is essential for the success of clinical trials. Histopathologists have a detailed understanding of tumour biology and mechanisms of disease, as well as practical knowledge of optimal tissue handling and logistical service requirements for study delivery, such as biomarker evaluation, tissue acquisition and turnaround times. As such, histopathologist input is essential throughout every stage of research and clinical trials, from concept development and study design to trial delivery, analysis and dissemination of results. Patient recruitment to trials takes place among all healthcare settings, meaning that histopathologists make an invaluable contribution to clinical trials as part of their routine day-to-day work that often goes unrecognised. More complex evaluation of surgical specimens in the neoadjuvant setting and ever-expanding minimum data sets add to the workload of every histopathologist, not just academic pathologists in tertiary centres. This is occurring against a backdrop of increasing workload pressures and a worldwide shortage of histopathologists and biomedical scientists. Providing essential histopathology support for trials at grassroots level requires funding for adequate resources including histopathologist time, education and training, biomedical scientist and administrative support and greater recognition of the contribution made by histopathology. This paper will discuss the many ways in which histopathologists are involved in clinical trials and the challenges faced in meeting the additional demands posed by trial participation and potential ways to address this, with a special emphasis on the UK model and the Cellular-Molecular Pathology Initiative (CM-Path).

Quality Assessment Across Disciplines in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Diagnostic Pathology in HNSCC

Quality assured pathology services are integral to provision of optimal management for patients with head and neck cancer. Pathology services vary globally and are dependent on resources in terms of both laboratory provision and availability of a highly trained and accredited workforce. Ensuring a high-quality pathology service depends largely on close working and effective communication between the clinical team providing treatment and the pathologists providing laboratory input. Laboratory services should be quality assured by achieving external accreditation, most often by conforming to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards such as ISO15189 sometimes with ISO17025 or alternatively ISO17020. Quality of diagnostic reporting can be assured by the ISO but clinical teams should endeavor to work with pathologists who engage in continuing professional development, external quality assurance and audit. Research also contributes to diagnostic reporting quality. A number of initiatives in the UK such as the EPSRC/MRC funded Molecular Pathology Nodes and the National Cancer Research Institute Cellular-Molecular Pathology initiative (C-M Path), for example, have linked pathologists, industry and researchers. This has resulted in centers leading in digital innovation, artificial intelligence, translational research and clinical trials supported by pathologists. For rare tumors and contemporary molecular diagnostics, biopsy material can increasingly be shared with expert specialist pathologists working in specialist centers, particularly by using digital pathology platforms with potentially global reach. High quality services for the majority of diagnostic processes required for head and neck cancer management is best provided by local pathologists where communication with the treating team is more effective than with pathologists working in remote centers. Quality assurance is an increasingly important aspect of pathology, assuring not only effective turnaround times and accuracy for the diagnostic service but also high quality consistent reporting for clinical trials where even small pathology errors can potentially produce a significant bias and in the worst case negate the value of a completed trial. Better outcomes have been associated with centers engaged in clinical trials than in non-participating centers. Provision of a quality assured pathology service should extend to both the research and diagnostic services.

The use of digital pathology and image analysis in clinical trials

Digital pathology and image analysis potentially provide greater accuracy, reproducibility and standardisation of pathology-based trial entry criteria and endpoints, alongside extracting new insights from both existing and novel features. Image analysis has great potential to identify, extract and quantify features in greater detail in comparison to pathologist assessment, which may produce improved prediction models or perform tasks beyond manual capability. In this article, we provide an overview of the utility of such technologies in clinical trials and provide a discussion of the potential applications, current challenges, limitations and remaining unanswered questions that require addressing prior to routine adoption in such studies. We reiterate the value of central review of pathology in clinical trials, and discuss inherent logistical, cost and performance advantages of using a digital approach. The current and emerging regulatory landscape is outlined. The role of digital platforms and remote learning to improve the training and performance of clinical trial pathologists is discussed. The impact of image analysis on quantitative tissue morphometrics in key areas such as standardisation of immunohistochemical stain interpretation, assessment of tumour cellularity prior to molecular analytical applications and the assessment of novel histological features is described. The standardisation of digital image production, establishment of criteria for digital pathology use in pre-clinical and clinical studies, establishment of performance criteria for image analysis algorithms and liaison with regulatory bodies to facilitate incorporation of image analysis applications into clinical practice are key issues to be addressed to improve digital pathology incorporation into clinical trials.