An international survey-based study on colorectal cancer pathology reporting—guidelines versus local practice

Variations in the definition and perceived importance of positive resection margins in patients with colorectal cancer - an EYSAC international survey

INTRODUCTION

Microscopically positive resection margins (R1) are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. However, different definitions of R1 margins exist. It is unclear to what extent the definitions used in everyday clinical practice differ within and between nations. This study sought to investigate variations in the definition of R1 margins in colorectal cancer and the importance of margin status in clinical decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 14-point survey was developed by members of The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Youngs Surgeons and Alumni Club (EYSAC) Research Academy targeting all members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) treating patients with colorectal cancer. The survey was distributed on social media, in ESSO's monthly newsletter and via national societies.

RESULTS

In total, 137 responses were received. Most respondents were from Europe (89.7%), with the majority from Denmark (56.9%). Less than 2/3 of respondents defined R1 margins as the presence of viable cancer cells ≤1 mm of the margin. Only 60% reported that subdivisions of R1 margins (primary tumour vs tumour deposit vs metastatic lymph node) are routinely available. More than 20% of respondents reported that pathology reports are not routinely reviewed at MDT meetings. Less than half of respondents considered margin status in decision-making for type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

The definitions and perceived clinical importance of microscopically positive margins in patients with colorectal cancer appear to vary. Adoption of an international dataset for pathology reporting may help to standardise current practices.

Malignant Colorectal Polyps: Are Pathology Reports Sufficient for Decision Making?

AIM

This study aims to assess the completeness of pathology reports of T1 colorectal cancers from different healthcare centers and the change of treatment decision after reevaluation of the polyps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, several pathology reports of endoscopically excised malignant colorectal polyps at diverse healthcare centers in Turkey were reassessed at a comprehensive cancer center in Istanbul. Reassessment was mainly focused on core elements such as the size of invasive carcinoma, histologic type and grade, tumor extension, surgical margin (deep and mucosal), and lymphovascular invasion.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven endoscopically resected malignant polyps were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 62.2 years and 38 (58%) patients were males. Tumor size, histologic type and grade, surgical margin (deep and mucosal), and lymphovascular invasion were reported in 11%, 100%, 31%, 9%, and 19%, respectively. All 5 prognostic factors were reported only in 1 (1.5%) pathology report. Because of the missing (incomplete) data, the pathologic examination of 59 (88%) patients was determined to be inadequate to make an accurate treatment decision.

CONCLUSION

Several variables are not considered and frequently missing for decision-making, suggesting the reassessment of the specimen by a second pathologist at a high-volume comprehensive cancer center.

Malignant Colorectal Polyp Pathology: Are We Getting Sufficient Information to Make Decisions?

The College of American Pathologists has published guidelines for malignant colorectal polyp pathology reports that list histopathological features that are "core elements" and "optional." Lack of element reporting may result in inaccurate tumor risk stratification.This study aimed to perform a population-based assessment of pathology reporting for T1 colorectal cancers and determine the completeness of reporting for core and optional histopathological elements.This is a retrospective cohort study.This study reviews the pathology reports of endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps in Alberta, Canada between 2014 and 2016.Individuals aged 18 years or older with T1 colorectal polyps were selected.Histopathological elements were dichotomized into core and optional. Malignant polyps were classified as high risk or low risk for lymph node metastases and local intraluminal recurrence. Addendum reports were compared with first reports.After applying exclusion criteria, 431 polyps were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 65.5 years; 59.4% were male. Histological grade, deep margin, and lymphovascular invasion were reported in 82.4%, 86.8% and 75.6%; all 3 were reported in only 66.4%. Tumor budding (not in the 2016 guidelines) was reported in 14.4%. One hundred ninety polyps (44.1%) were high risk. Thirty-seven polyps (8.3%) had an addendum report. Following the addendum, 1 polyp was downgraded to low risk, and 9 polyps were upgraded to high risk.The main limitation of the study is its retrospective nature. The decision making surrounding treatment for T1 cancers is complex, and factors other than histopathological tumor features may have been part of treatment decisions.There is a high rate of incomplete reporting of core and optional elements for malignant colorectal polyp pathology reports in Alberta. Several variables used by colorectal surgeons for decision making, such as tumor budding and depth of submucosal invasion, are not considered core elements and are infrequently reported. A pathology review by a second pathologist often results in a change in risk stratification. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B98. PATOLOGÍA DEL PÓLIPO COLORRECTAL MALIGNO: ¿ESTAMOS OBTENIENDO INFORMACIÓN SUFICIENTE PARA TOMAR DECISIONES?: El Colegio de Patólogos Americanos publico pautas para informes de patología de pólipos colorrectales malignos que enumeran características histopatológicas como "elementos centrales" y "opcionales". La falta de información elemental puede resultar en una estratificación de riesgo tumoral imprecisa.Valoración basada en una población de los informes de patología para los cánceres colorrectales T1 y determinar la precisión de los informes en cuanto los elementos histopatológicos centrales y opcionales.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.Este estudio revisa los informes de patología de pólipos colorrectales malignos resecados endoscópicamente en Alberta, Canadá, entre 2014 y 2016.personas mayores de 18 años con pólipos colorrectales T1.Los elementos histopatológicos se dicotomizaron entre elementales y opcionales. Pólipos malignos se clasificaron como de alto riesgo o bajo riesgo de metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos y recurrencia intraluminal local. Los informes enmendados se compararon con los informes originales.Después de aplicar los criterios de exclusión, se analizaron 431 pólipos. La edad media fue 65.5 años, con 59.4% masculinos. El grado histológico, el margen profundo y la invasión linfovascular se informaron confirmaron en 82.4%, 86.8% y 75.6% respectivamente; las tres características se demostraron en solo 66.4%. Un patrón tumoral en ciernes se reporto en 14.4-una característica que no se usaba en las guías de 2016. Ciento noventa pólipos (44.1%) eran de alto riesgo. Treinta y siete pólipos (8.3%) requirieron de un informe enmendado. Aplicación de los nuevos criterios resulto en que 1 pólipo se redujo a bajo riesgo y 9 pólipos se actualizaron como a alto riesgo.La principal limitación del estudio es el diseño retrospectivo. La toma de decisiones en torno al tratamiento de los cánceres T1 es compleja y otros factores además de las características histopatológicas del tumor pueden haber sido parte de las decisiones terapéuticas.Hay una alta tasa de informes incompletos de elementos centrales y opcionales para informes de patología de pólipos colorrectales malignos en Alberta. Algunas variables utilizadas por los cirujanos colorrectales para la toma de decisiones, como el patrón tumoral en ciernes y la profundidad de la invasión submucosa, no se consideran elementos centrales y se informan con poca frecuencia. Una revisión de patología realizada por un segundo patólogo a menudo resulta en un cambio en la estratificación del riesgo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B98. (Traducción-Dr. Adrian E. Ortega).

Challenges with colorectal cancer staging: results of an international study

Challenges exist with standardized colorectal cancer reporting despite adoption of the American Joint Committee on Cancer-Staging Manual 8th edition. We performed this study to gauge current practice patterns among a diverse group of surgical pathologists. A web-based questionnaire depicting problematic issues and images related to colorectal carcinoma staging was circulated among 118 surgical pathologists and their responses were correlated with their geographic location (North America vs. Europe vs. others), nature of practice (academic vs. community), the sign-out model (gastrointestinal subspecialty vs. general surgical pathology), and years of professional experience. We found that a substantial number of practicing pathologists ignore recommended-staging criteria in specific settings, particularly with respect to assessment of advanced T stage. Tumors that communicated with the serosa through inflammatory foci were staged as pT3 (49%) or pT4a (51%) by nearly equal numbers of pathologists regardless of level of experience, the sign-out model, or geographic location. Only 65% assigned T stage and margin status based on extent of viable tumor in the neoadjuvant setting. One-third of pathologists, particularly those in Europe (p = 0.015), classified acellular mucin deposits as N1 disease when detected in treatment-naive cases. Nearly 50% of pathologists classified isolated tumor cells (i.e., deposits <0.2 mm) in lymph nodes as metastatic disease (i.e., pN1, p = 0.02). Our results suggest that pathologists ignore recommendations that are based on insufficient data and apply individualized criteria when faced with situations that are not addressed in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition. These variations in practice limit the ability to compare outcome data across different institutions and draw attention to areas that require further study.