Pathology is a necessary and informative tool in oncology clinical trials

Clinical translation of nanomedicine with integrated digital medicine and machine learning interventions

Nanomaterials based therapeutics transform the ways of disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment with increasing sophistications in nanotechnology at a breakneck pace, but very few could reach to the clinic due to inconsistencies in preclinical studies followed by regulatory hinderances. To tackle this, integrating the nanomedicine discovery with digital medicine provide technologies as tools of specific biological activity measurement. Hence, overcome the redundancies in nanomedicine discovery by the on-site data acquisition and analytics through integrating intelligent sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML). Integrated AI/ML wearable sensors directly gather clinically relevant biochemical information from the subject's body and process data for physicians to make right clinical decision(s) in a time and cost-effective way. This review summarizes insights and recommend the infusion of actionable big data computation enabled sensors in burgeoning field of nanomedicine at academia, research institutes, and pharmaceutical industries, with a potential of clinical translation. Furthermore, many blind spots are present in modern clinically relevant computation, one of which could prevent ML-guided low-cost new nanomedicine development from being successfully translated into the clinic was also discussed.

Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice

Traditional pathology approaches have played an integral role in the delivery of diagnosis, semi-quantitative or qualitative assessment of protein expression, and classification of disease. Technological advances and the increased focus on precision medicine have recently paved the way for the development of digital pathology-based approaches for quantitative pathologic assessments, namely whole slide imaging and artificial intelligence (AI)-based solutions, allowing us to explore and extract information beyond human visual perception. Within the field of immuno-oncology, the application of such methodologies in drug development and translational research have created invaluable opportunities for deciphering complex pathophysiology and the discovery of novel biomarkers and drug targets. With an increasing number of treatment options available for any given disease, practitioners face the growing challenge of selecting the most appropriate treatment for each patient. The ever-increasing utilization of AI-based approaches substantially expands our understanding of the tumor microenvironment, with digital approaches to patient stratification and selection for diagnostic assays supporting the identification of the optimal treatment regimen based on patient profiles. This review provides an overview of the opportunities and limitations around implementing AI-based methods in biomarker discovery and patient selection and discusses how advances in digital pathology and AI should be considered in the current landscape of translational medicine, touching on challenges this technology may face if adopted in clinical settings. The traditional role of pathologists in delivering accurate diagnoses or assessing biomarkers for companion diagnostics may be enhanced in precision, reproducibility, and scale by AI-powered analysis tools.

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.

A Proposal for Novel Standards of Histopathology Reporting for D3 Lymphadenectomy in Right Colon Cancer: The Mesocolic Sail and Superior Right Colic Vein Landmarks

BACKGROUND

Strong agreement exists concerning the standards of pathologic reporting for total mesorectal excision and complete mesocolic excision. It represents a quality standard that correlates with survival. However, no agreed standards of reporting are available to define D3 lymphadenectomy for right colectomy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define anatomopathological standards of specimen quality obtained from the surgical specimen when an oncologic right hemicolectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy has been correctly performed.

DESIGN

This study was conducted in 2 different phases. The first part consisted of a cadaver-based study of right colon anatomy, and the second part consisted of a prospective assessment of a series of surgical specimens obtained after right hemicolectomy for cancer.

SETTINGS

The anatomic phase of the study was performed in collaboration with the University of Valencia Department of Anatomy and Embryology. The second part was performed at a colorectal unit of a tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Seventeen cadavers were used for the first phase, and 65 surgical specimens were examined for the second part of the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In each specimen, the pathologists looked for anatomic structures defined as markers of quality standards of the D3 lymphadenectomy during the first phase. Specimens were classified as complete, partial, and incomplete D3 lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

Twenty percent of specimens were classified as incomplete D3 lymphadenectomy, 31% as partial, and 49% as complete. A median number of 14 (6-64), 22 (11-47), and 29 (14-55) lymph nodes were isolated (p = 0.01). Similarly, the median numbers of lymph nodes isolated in the area of D3 lymphadenectomy were 0 in incomplete, 1 (0-5) in Partial, and 3 (0-8) in Complete D3 lymphadenectomy specimens (p = 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

A large multicenter study with adequate power is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose the right mesocolic sail and trunk of superior right colic vein as new and reproducible anatomopathologic standards of D3 lymphadenectomy in oncologic right hemicolectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B149. PROPUESTA PARA NUEVOS ESTÁNDARES HISTOPATOLÓGICOS EN LA LINFADENECTOMÍA D3 EN EL CÁNCER DE COLON DERECHO: LA VELA MESOCÓLICA Y LA VENA CÓLICA DERECHA SUPERIOR: Existe un claro acuerdo sobre los estándares de calidad patológicos para la escisión total del mesorrecto y la escisión completa del mesocolon. Son considerados "estándar de calidad" que se correlaciona con la supervivencia. Sin embargo, no se dispone de estándares de calidad para definir la linfadenectomía D3, en la colectomía derecha.Definir los estándares anatomopatológicos de calidad obtenidos de una muestra quirúrgica, cuando se ha realizado correctamente una hemicolectomía derecha oncológica, con linfadenectomía D3.Dos fases diferentes. La primera parte consistió en un estudio basado en la anatomía del colon derecho, realizado en cadáveres, y la segunda parte consistió en una evaluación prospectiva de una serie de muestras quirúrgicas obtenidas después de la hemicolectomía derecha para cáncer.La fase anatómica del estudio se realizó en colaboración con el Departamento de Anatomía y Embriología de la Universidad de Valencia. La segunda parte se realizó en la Unidad Colorrectal de un hospital terciario.Se utilizaron diecisiete cadáveres para la primera fase y se examinaron 65 muestras quirúrgicas para la segunda parte del estudio.En cada muestra, los patólogos buscaron estructuras anatómicas definidas, como marcadores de los estándares de calidad de la linfadenectomía D3, durante la primera fase. Las muestras se clasificaron como linfadenectomía D3 completa, parcial e incompleta.El veinte por ciento de las muestras se clasificaron como "Linfadenectomía D3 Incompleta", el 31% como "Parcial" y el 49% como "Completa." Se aisló una media de 14 (6-64), 22 (11-47) y 29 (14-55) ganglios linfáticos respectivamente (p = 0,01). Del mismo modo, el número medio de ganglios linfáticos aislados en el área de la linfadenectomía D3 fue 0 en "Incompleta", 1 (0-5) en "Parcial" y 3 (0-8) en muestras de "Linfadenectomía D3 Completa" (p = 0,0001).Se necesita un estudio multicéntrico con potencia adecuada.Proponemos la vela mesocólica derecha y el tronco de la vena cólica derecha superior, como estándares anatomopatológicos nuevos y reproducibles de linfadenectomía D3, en hemicolectomía derecha oncológica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B149.

Quality assurance guidance for scoring and reporting for pathologists and laboratories undertaking clinical trial work

While pathologists have always played a pivotal role in clinical trials ensuring accurate diagnosis and staging, pathology data from prognostic and predictive tests are increasingly being used to enrol, stratify and randomise patients to experimental treatments. The use of pathological parameters as primary and secondary outcome measures, either as standalone classifiers or in combination with clinical data, is also becoming more common. Moreover, reporting of estimates of residual disease, termed 'pathological complete response', have been incorporated into neoadjuvant clinical trials. Pathologists have the expertise to deliver this essential information and they also understand the requirements and limitations of laboratory testing. Quality assurance of pathology-derived data builds confidence around trial-specific findings and is necessarily focused on the reproducibility of pathological data, including 'estimates of uncertainty of measurement', emphasising the importance of pathologist education, training, calibration and demonstration of satisfactory inter-observer agreement. There are also opportunities to validate objective image analysis tools alongside conventional histological assessments. The ever-expanding portfolio of clinical trials will demand more pathologist engagement to deliver the reliable evidence-base required for new treatments. We provide guidance for quality assurance of pathology scoring and reporting in clinical trials.

Training and accreditation standards for pathologists undertaking clinical trial work

Clinical trials rely on multidisciplinary teams for successful delivery. Pathologists should be involved in clinical trial design from the outset to ensure that protocols are optimised to deliver maximum data collection and translational research opportunities. Clinical trials must be performed according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the trial sponsor has an obligation to ensure that all of the personnel involved in the trial have undergone training relevant to their role. Pathologists who are involved in the delivery of clinical trials are often required to undergo formal GCP training and may additionally undergo Good Clinical Laboratory Practice training if they are involved in the laboratory analysis of trials samples. Further training can be provided via trial-specific investigator meetings, which may be either multidisciplinary or discipline-specific events. Pathologists should also ensure that they undertake External Quality Assurance schemes relevant to the area of diagnostic practice required in the trial. The level of engagement of pathologists in academia and clinical trials research has declined in the United Kingdom over recent years. This paper recommends the optimal training and accreditation for pathologists undertaking clinical trials activities with the aim of facilitating increased engagement. Clinical trials training should ideally be provided to all pathologists through centrally organised educational events, with additional training provided to pathologists in training through local postgraduate teaching. Pathologists in training should also be strongly encouraged to undertake GCP training. It is hoped that these recommendations will increase the number of pathologists who take part in clinical trials research in order to ensure a high level and standard of data collection and to maximise the translational research opportunities.

Barriers to the release of human tissue for clinical trials research in the UK: a national survey of cellular pathology laboratories on behalf of the National Cancer Research Institute's Cellular Molecular Pathology (CM-Path) initiative

AIM

To survey UK cellular pathology departments regarding their attitudes and practices relating to release of human tissue from their diagnostic archives for use in clinical trial research.

METHODS

A 30-item questionnaire was circulated to the National Cancer Research Institute's Cellular Molecular Pathology initiative and Confederation of Cancer Biobanks mailing lists. Responses were collected over a 10-month period from November 2016 to August 2017.

RESULTS

38 departments responded to the survey, the majority of which regularly receive requests for tissue for research purposes. Most requests come from academia and financial support to facilitate tissue release comes from a variety of sources. A range of practices were reported in relation to selection of the most appropriate sample to release, consent checking, costing and governance frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates wide variation in practice across the UK and identifies barriers to release of human tissue for clinical trial research. Until we can overcome these obstacles, patient samples will remain inaccessible to research. Therefore, this study highlights the urgent need for clear and coordinated national guidance on this issue.

Association of Plane of Total Mesorectal Excision With Prognosis of Rectal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Previous retrospective studies have shown that surgical quality affects local control in rectal cancer..

Objective

In this secondary end point analysis, we evaluated the prognostic effect of the total mesorectal excision (TME) plane in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial enrolled 1236 patients with cT3-4 and/or node-positive rectal adenocarcinoma from 88 centers in Germany between July 25, 2006, and February 26, 2010.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive treatment with standard fluorouracil-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone (control arm) or oxaliplatin (experimental arm) followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The TME quality (mesorectal, intramesorectal, and muscularis propria plane) was prospectively assessed in 1152 operation specimens. An assessment was performed independently by pathologists and surgeons. The results were correlated with clinicopathologic data and the clinical outcome was tested, including multivariable analysis with the Cox regression model.

Results

Of 1152 German Caucasian participants, 332 (28.8) were women and the mean age was 63 years. The plane of TME was mesorectal in 930 patients (80.7%), intramesorectal in 169 (14.7%), and muscularis propria in 53 (4.6%). In a univariable analysis, the TME plane was significantly associated with 3-year disease-free survival (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 73.1-78.8 vs 61.6-76.0 vs 55.6-81.3, respectively; P = .01), cumulative incidence of local and distant recurrences (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 2.0-4.5 vs 1.2-8.1 vs 2.5-20.5, respectively; P < .001; and mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 17.0-22.4 vs 18.3-32.0 vs 14.2-39.0, respectively; P = .03, respectively), and overall survival (mesorectal vs intramesorectal vs muscularis propria, 95% CI, 88.3-92.3 vs 79.7-91.0 vs 81.6-98.7, respectively; P = .02). In contrast to the pathologist-based evaluation, the assessment of TME plane by the operating surgeon failed to demonstrate prognostic significance for any of these clinical end points. In a multivariable analysis, the plane of surgery (mesorectal vs muscularis propria TME) constituted an independent factor for local recurrence (P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

This phase 3 randomized clinical trial confirms the long-term clinical effect of TME plane quality on local recurrence, as initially reported in the MRC CR07 study. The data highlight the key role of pathologists and surgeons in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00349076.

Molecular Testing and the Pathologist's Role in Clinical Trials of Breast Cancer

Molecular characterization of breast cancer is pivotal for identifying new molecular targets and determining the appropriate treatment choices. Advances in molecular profiling technology have given greater insight into this heterogeneous disease, over and above hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Agents targeting recently characterized molecular biomarkers are under clinical development; the success of these targeted agents is likely to depend on identifying the patient population most likely to benefit. Therefore, clinical trials of breast cancer often require prescreening for, or stratification by, relevant molecular markers or exploratory analyses of biomarkers that can predict or monitor the response to treatment. Consequently, the role of the pathologist has become increasingly important. The key considerations for pathologists include tissue availability, ownership of archival tissue, type of diagnostic/biomarker test required, method of sample processing, concordance between different tests and testing centers, and tumor heterogeneity. In the present review, we explore how pathology is used in current clinical trials of breast cancer and describe the various technologies available for molecular testing. Furthermore, the factors required for the successful application of pathology in clinical trials of breast cancer and the issues that can arise and how these can be circumvented are discussed.

The Increasing Relevance of Tumour Histology in Determining Oncological Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is not just one type of cancer. Differences in outcome and reaction to treatment can at least be partly explained by different histological and molecular subtypes. Recognition of these differences may influence treatment decisions. However, there is huge variation in the amount of information that is available. Several tumour types such as mucinous carcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma have such a distinct phenotype that they are readily recognised. However, due to the rarity of signet ring cell carcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma, limited data are available. More recently defined subtypes, like medullary carcinoma, serrated adenocarcinoma and micropapillary carcinoma, are not adequately diagnosed, which limits research possibilities using large-scale data from registries. In the current review, we systematically describe the histologic subtypes with the clinical and molecular background. We evaluate their prognosis compared to adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified and speculate about the clinical relevance.

Identification of a candidate prognostic gene signature by transcriptome analysis of matched pre- and post-treatment prostatic biopsies from patients with advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Although chemotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) can improve patient survival, some tumours are chemo-resistant. Tumour molecular profiles may help identify the mechanisms of drug action and identify potential prognostic biomarkers. We performed in vivo transcriptome profiling of pre- and post-treatment prostatic biopsies from patients with advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer treated with docetaxel chemotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with an aim to identify the mechanisms of drug action and identify prognostic biomarkers.

METHODS

RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was performed on biopsies from four patients before and ~22 weeks after docetaxel and ADT initiation. Gene fusion products and differentially-regulated genes between treatment pairs were identified using TopHat and pathway enrichment analyses undertaken. Publically available datasets were interrogated to perform survival analyses on the gene signatures identified using cBioportal.

RESULTS

A number of genomic rearrangements were identified including the TMPRSS2/ERG fusion and 3 novel gene fusions involving the ETS family of transcription factors in patients, both pre and post chemotherapy. In total, gene expression analyses showed differential expression of at least 2 fold in 575 genes in post-chemotherapy biopsies. Of these, pathway analyses identified a panel of 7 genes (ADAM7, FAM72B, BUB1B, CCNB1, CCNB2, TTK, CDK1), including a cell cycle-related geneset, that were differentially-regulated following treatment with docetaxel and ADT. Using cBioportal to interrogate the MSKCC-Prostate Oncogenome Project dataset we observed a statistically-significant reduction in disease-free survival of patients with tumours exhibiting alterations in gene expression of the above panel of 7 genes (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Here we report on the first "real-time" in vivo RNA-Seq-based transcriptome analysis of clinical PCa from pre- and post-treatment TRUSS-guided biopsies of patients treated with docetaxel chemotherapy plus ADT. We identify a chemotherapy-driven PCa transcriptome profile which includes the down-regulation of important positive regulators of cell cycle progression. A 7 gene signature biomarker panel has also been identified in high-risk prostate cancer patients to be of prognostic value. Future prospective study is warranted to evaluate the clinical value of this panel.

Pathology in drug discovery and development

The rapid pace of drug discovery and drug development in oncology, immunology and ophthalmology brings new challenges; the efficient and effective development of new targeted drugs will require more detailed molecular classifications of histologically homogeneous diseases that show heterogeneous clinical outcomes. To this end, single companion diagnostics for specific drugs will be replaced by multiplex diagnostics for entire therapeutic areas, preserving tissue and enabling rapid molecular taxonomy. The field will move away from the development of new molecular entities as single agents, to which resistance is common. Instead, a detailed understanding of the pathological mechanisms of resistance, in patients and in preclinical models, will be key to the validation of scientifically rational and clinically effective drug combinations. To remain at the heart of disease diagnosis and appropriate management, pathologists must evolve into translational biologists and biomarker scientists. Herein, we provide examples of where this metamorphosis has already taken place, in lung cancer and melanoma, where the transformation has yet to begin, in the use of immunotherapies for ophthalmology and oncology, and where there is fertile soil for a revolution in treatment, in efforts to classify glioblastoma and personalize treatment. The challenges of disease heterogeneity, the regulatory environment and adequate tissue are ever present, but these too are being overcome in dedicated academic centres. In summary, the tools necessary to overcome the 'whens' and 'ifs' of the molecular revolution are in the hands of pathologists today; it is a matter of standardization, training and leadership to bring these into routine practice and translate science into patient benefit. This Annual Review Issue of the Journal of Pathology highlights the central role for pathology in modern drug discovery and development.