Variability in Synoptic Reporting of Colorectal Cancer pT4a Category and Lymphovascular Invasion

FIGO 2023 staging for endometrial cancer, when, if it is not now?

Incorporation of pathological and (not mandatory) molecular features into the new FIGO 2023 staging system has generated some controversy. Several validations have been published recently that demonstrated the higher prognostic precision of FIGO 2023 compared to the previous FIGO 2009 scheme. In the present article, the authors want to respond to some concerns that were raised by some pathologists and clinicians.

The clinical significance of elastic lamina invasion in patients with pStage II colorectal cancer: a notable prognostic indicator

BACKGROUND

Some colorectal cancers (CRCs) are clinically diagnosed as cT4a with　serosal invasion (SI). However, the cT4a is most often underdiagnosed pathologically as pT3 without SI by hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining alone. Using Elastica van Gieson (EVG) staining, some pT3 tumors invade the elastic lamina (EL), which extends just below the serosal layer. Recently, EL invasion (ELI) has been described as a poor prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with pStage II CRC. However, its clinicopathological significance remains unclear due to the limited number of studies and poor understanding of ELI.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the association between the ELI and patient prognosis.

METHODS

After 1982, pathological diagnosis was routinely performed using H&E and EVG staining methods, and long-term follow up was performed until 2016. All clinicopathological features including ELI were prospectively registered into our computer and 569 patients with pStage II CRC were collected from the database. Based on the ELI status, pT3 was divided into three pathological categories: pT3ELI - was defined as pT3a, pT3ELI + as pT3b and unidentified EL (pT3EL -) as pT3u.

RESULTS

Using H&E staining alone, gross cT4a was most often pathologically underdiagnosed as pT3 (93.8%) and very rarely as pT4a, resulting in a large diagnostic discrepancy. Using EVG staining, 60.7% of the cT4a tumors were diagnosed as pT3b. The 10-year DFS and OS rates were similar for pT3a and pT3u patients. However, the 10-year DFS and OS rates of pT3b patients were significantly lower than those of pT3a patients (75.6% vs. 95.6%, p < 0.0001 and 58.4% vs. 70.6%, p = 0.0024, respectively) but did not differ from those of pT4a patients (70.6%, p = 0.5799 and 52.0%, p = 0.1116, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that the ELI was the strongest independent risk factor for recurrence and CRC-specific death (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of the ELI allows us to reconsider the diagnostic discrepancy of serosal invasion, i.e., pT3b should be considered pT4a. The ELI-based subclassification of pT3 is expected to be incorporated into the TNM staging system in the future. The ELI is a notable prognostic indicator in patients with pStage II CRC.

The measured distance between tumor cells and the peritoneal surface predicts the risk of peritoneal metastases and offers an objective means to differentiate between pT3 and pT4a colon cancer

Substantial variability exists in what pathologists consider as pT4a in colorectal cancer when tumor cells are within 1 mm of the free peritoneal surface. This study aimed to determine if the measured sub-millimeter distance between tumor cells and the free peritoneal surface would offer an objective means of stratifying patients according to the risk of developing peritoneal metastases. Histological slides of patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with resectable primary c/pT4N0-2M0 colon cancer, were centrally reassessed. Specific tumor morphological variables were collected, including distance from tumor to free peritoneal surface, measured in micrometers (µm). The primary outcome, 3-year peritoneal metastasis rate, was compared between four groups of patients stratified for relation of tumor cells to the peritoneum: 1) Full peritoneal penetration with tumor cells on the peritoneal surface, 2) 0-99 µm distance to the peritoneum, 3) 100-999 µm to the peritoneum, and 4) ≥1000 µm to the peritoneum, by using Kaplan-Meier analysis. In total, 189 cases were included in the present analysis. Cases with full peritoneal penetration (n = 89), 0-99 µm distance to the peritoneal surface (n = 34), 100-999 µm distance (n = 33), and ≥1000 µm distance (n = 33), showed significantly different 3-year peritoneal metastases rates of 25% vs 29% vs 6% vs 12%, respectively (Log Rank, p = 0.044). N-category did not influence the risk of peritoneal metastases in patients with a tumor distance beyond 100 µm, while only the N2 category seemed to result in an additive risk in patients with a distance of 0-99 µm. The findings of this study suggest that the measured shortest distance between tumor cells and the free peritoneal surface is useful as an objective means of stratifying patients according to the risk of developing peritoneal metastases. This simple measurement is practical and may help in providing a precise definition of pT4a. Trial registration: NCT02231086 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols: From Optimizing Cancer Patient Care to Facilitating Interoperable Reporting and Downstream Data Use

The College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols have offered guidance to pathologists for standard cancer pathology reporting for more than 35 years. The adoption of computer readable versions of these protocols by electronic health record and laboratory information system (LIS) vendors has provided a mechanism for pathologists to report within their LIS workflow, in addition to enabling standardized structured data capture and reporting to downstream consumers of these data such as the cancer surveillance community. This paper reviews the history of the Cancer Protocols and electronic Cancer Checklists, outlines the current use of these critically important cancer case reporting tools, and examines future directions, including plans to help improve the integration of the Cancer Protocols into clinical, public health, research, and other workflows.