Dataset for Pathology Reporting of Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2022
01 03 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
10
7
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
entrez:
9
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study to describe a new international dataset for pathology reporting of colorectal cancer surgical specimens, produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Quality of pathology reporting and mutual understanding between colorectal surgeon, pathologist and oncologist are vital to patient management. Some pathology parameters are prone to variable interpretation, resulting in differing positions adopted by existing national datasets. The ICCR, a global alliance of major pathology institutions with links to international cancer organizations, has developed and ratified a rigorous and efficient process for the development of evidence-based, structured datasets for pathology reporting of common cancers. Here we describe the production of a dataset for colorectal cancer resection specimens by a multidisciplinary panel of internationally recognized experts. The agreed dataset comprises eighteen core (essential) and seven non-core (recommended) elements identified from a review of current evidence. Areas of contention are addressed, some highly relevant to surgical practice, with the aim of standardizing multidisciplinary discussion. The summation of all core elements is considered to be the minimum reporting standard for individual cases. Commentary is provided, explaining each element's clinical relevance, definitions to be applied where appropriate for the agreed list of value options and the rationale for considering the element as core or non-core. This first internationally agreed dataset for colorectal cancer pathology reporting promotes standardization of pathology reporting and enhanced clinicopathological communication. Widespread adoption will facilitate international comparisons, multinational clinical trials and help to improve the management of colorectal cancer globally.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study to describe a new international dataset for pathology reporting of colorectal cancer surgical specimens, produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).
BACKGROUND
Quality of pathology reporting and mutual understanding between colorectal surgeon, pathologist and oncologist are vital to patient management. Some pathology parameters are prone to variable interpretation, resulting in differing positions adopted by existing national datasets.
METHODS
The ICCR, a global alliance of major pathology institutions with links to international cancer organizations, has developed and ratified a rigorous and efficient process for the development of evidence-based, structured datasets for pathology reporting of common cancers. Here we describe the production of a dataset for colorectal cancer resection specimens by a multidisciplinary panel of internationally recognized experts.
RESULTS
The agreed dataset comprises eighteen core (essential) and seven non-core (recommended) elements identified from a review of current evidence. Areas of contention are addressed, some highly relevant to surgical practice, with the aim of standardizing multidisciplinary discussion. The summation of all core elements is considered to be the minimum reporting standard for individual cases. Commentary is provided, explaining each element's clinical relevance, definitions to be applied where appropriate for the agreed list of value options and the rationale for considering the element as core or non-core.
CONCLUSIONS
This first internationally agreed dataset for colorectal cancer pathology reporting promotes standardization of pathology reporting and enhanced clinicopathological communication. Widespread adoption will facilitate international comparisons, multinational clinical trials and help to improve the management of colorectal cancer globally.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34238814
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005051
pii: 00000658-202203000-00035
pmc: PMC8820778
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Practice Guideline
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e549-e561Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Manser MD, Levine DF, Pheby DF, et al. Colorectal cancer registration: the central importance of pathology. J Clin Pathol 2000; 53:875–877.
Nagtegaal ID, Arends MJ, Odze RD. Lokuhetty D, White V, Watanabe R, et al. Tumours of the colon and rectum. Digestive System Tumours. WHO Classification of Tumours IARC Press, 5th edLyon, France: 2019.
Quirke P, Williams GT, Ectors N, et al. The future of the TNM staging system in colorectal cancer: time for a debate? Lancet Oncol 2007; 8:651–657.
Williams MD, DeLellis RA, Erickson LA, et al. Pathology data set for reporting parathyroid carcinoma and atypical parathyroid neoplasm: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting. Hum Pathol 2020; 110:73–82.
College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of excisional biopsy specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum . 2020. Available from: https://documents.cap.org/protocols/cp-gilower-colonrectum-biopsy-20-4100.pdf . Accessed August 28, 2020.
The Royal College of Pathologists. Dataset for histopathological reporting of colorectal cancer . 2018. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/c8b61ba0-ae3f-43f1-85ffd3ab9f17cfe6/G049-Dataset-for-histopathological-reporting-of-colorectal-cancer.pdf . Accessed April 22, 2020.
Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Colorectal cancer structured reporting protocol . 2016. Available from: https://www.rcpa.edu.au/getattachment/730b9fad-3228-4601-9009-b3d671818bd6/Protocol-colorectal-cancer.aspx . Accessed April 22, 2020.
Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9:34.
D'Souza N, de Neree Tot Babberich MPM, d’Hoore A, et al. Definition of the rectum: an international, expert-based Delphi consensus. Ann Surg 2019; 270:955–959.
Petersen VC, Baxter KJ, Love SB, et al. Identification of objective pathological prognostic determinants and models of prognosis in Dukes’ B colon cancer. Gut 2002; 51:65–69.
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, et al. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:9257–9264.
Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. Union for International Cancer Control. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Wiley, 8th ed.USA: 2016.
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer, 8th ed.New York: 2017.
Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2009; 373:821–828.
Arbman G, Nilsson E, Hallbook O, et al. Local recurrence following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1996; 83:375–379.
Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:638–646.
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, et al. Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:1729–1734.
den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, et al. The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:1175–1183.
Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, et al. Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer-a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26:1227–1240.
West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, et al. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2010; 97:588–599.
Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B, et al. Prospective validation of a low rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging staging system and development of a local recurrence risk stratification model: the MERCURY II study. Ann Surg 2016; 263:751–760.
West NP, Morris EJ, Rotimi O, et al. Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9:857–865.
Gouvas N, Agalianos C, Papaparaskeva K, et al. Surgery along the embryological planes for colon cancer: a systematic review of complete mesocolic excision. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016; 31:1577–1594.
Sorbye H, Strosberg J, Baudin E, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Cancer 2014; 120:2814–2823.
Chandler I, Houlston RS. Interobserver agreement in grading of colorectal cancers-findings from a nationwide web-based survey of histopathologists. Histopathology 2008; 52:494–499.
Renfro LA, Grothey A, Xue Y, et al. ACCENT-based web calculators to predict recurrence and overall survival in stage III colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106:1–9.
Weiser MR, Gonen M, Chou JF, et al. Predicting survival after curative colectomy for cancer: individualizing colon cancer staging. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:4796–4802.
Konishi T, Shimada Y, Lee LH, et al. Poorly differentiated clusters predict colon cancer recurrence: an in-depth comparative analysis of invasive-front prognostic markers. Am J Surg Pathol 2018; 42:705–714.
Kojima M, Shimazaki H, Iwaya K, et al. Intramucosal colorectal carcinoma with invasion of the lamina propria: a study by the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Hum Pathol 2017; 66:230–237.
Shepherd NA, Baxter KJ, Love SB. The prognostic importance of peritoneal involvement in colonic cancer: a prospective evaluation. Gastroenterology 1997; 112:1096–1102.
Gunderson LL, Jessup JM, Sargent DJ, et al. Revised TN categorization for colon cancer based on national survival outcomes data. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:264–271.
Kirsch R, Messenger DE, Shepherd NA, et al. Wide variability in assessment and reporting of colorectal cancer specimens among North American pathologists: results of a Canada-US Survey. Can J of Pathol 2019; 11:58–69.
Kojima M, Nakajima K, Ishii G, et al. Peritoneal elastic laminal invasion of colorectal cancer: the diagnostic utility and clinicopathologic relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34:1351–1360.
Puppa G, Shepherd NA, Sheahan K, et al. Peritoneal elastic lamina invasion in colorectal cancer: the answer to a controversial area of pathology? Am J Surg Pathol 2011; 35:465–468.
Freedman LS, Macaskill P, Smith AN. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for operable rectal cancer. Lancet 1984; 2:733–736.
Betge J, Pollheimer MJ, Lindtner RA, et al. Intramural and extramural vascular invasion in colorectal cancer: prognostic significance and quality of pathology reporting. Cancer 2012; 118:628–638.
Knijn N, van Exsel UEM, de Noo ME, et al. The value of intramural vascular invasion in colorectal cancer—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Histopathology 2018; 72:721–728.
Talbot IC, Ritchie S, Leighton M, et al. Invasion of veins by carcinoma of rectum: method of detection, histological features and significance. Histopathology 1981; 5:141–163.
Howlett CJ, Tweedie EJ, Driman DK. Use of an elastic stain to show venous invasion in colorectal carcinoma: a simple technique for detection of an important prognostic factor. J Clin Pathol 2009; 62:1021–1025.
Kirsch R, Messenger DE, Riddell RH, et al. Venous invasion in colorectal cancer: impact of an elastin stain on detection and interobserver agreement among gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37:200–210.
Santos C, Lopez-Doriga A, Navarro M, et al. Clinicopathological risk factors of Stage II colon cancer: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15:414–422.
Lim SB, Yu CS, Jang SJ, et al. Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in sporadic colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53:377–384.
van Wyk HC, Roxburgh CS, Horgan PG, et al. The detection and role of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in predicting survival in patients with node negative operable primary colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2014; 90:77–90.
Ueno H, Shirouzu K, Eishi Y, et al. Characterization of perineural invasion as a component of colorectal cancer staging. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37:1542–1549.
Knijn N, Mogk SC, Teerenstra S, et al. Perineural invasion is a strong prognostic factor in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40:103–112.
Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, et al. Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:433–441.
Sloothaak DA, Sahami S, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, et al. The prognostic value of micrometastases and isolated tumour cells in histologically negative lymph nodes of patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40:263–269.
Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. Union for International Cancer Control. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Wiley-Blackwell, 7th edUSA: 2009.
Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer, 7th ed.New York: 2010.
Nagtegaal ID, Knijn N, Hugen N, et al. Tumor deposits in colorectal cancer: improving the value of modern staging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:1119–1127.
Zlobec I, Lugli A. Epithelial mesenchymal transition and tumor budding in aggressive colorectal cancer: tumor budding as oncotarget. Oncotarget 2010; 1:651–661.
Beaton C, Twine CP, Williams GL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of histopathological factors influencing the risk of lymph node metastasis in early colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15:788–797.
Bosch SL, Teerenstra S, de Wilt JH, et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy 2013; 45:827–834.
Cappellesso R, Luchini C, Veronese N, et al. Tumor budding as a risk factor for nodal metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancers: a meta-analysis. Hum Pathol 2017; 65:62–70.
van Wyk HC, Park J, Roxburgh C, et al. The role of tumour budding in predicting survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2015; 41:151–159.
Lugli A, Kirsch R, Ajioka Y, et al. Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod Pathol 2017; 30:1299–1311.
Koelzer VH, Assarzadegan N, Dawson H, et al. Cytokeratin-based assessment of tumour budding in colorectal cancer: analysis in stage II patients and prospective diagnostic experience. J Pathol Clin Res 2017; 3:171–178.
Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:835–844.
Rodel C, Martus P, Papadoupolos T, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:8688–8696.
Ryan R, Gibbons D, Hyland JM, et al. Pathological response following long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Histopathology 2005; 47:141–146.
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:303–312.
Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2002; 235:449–457.
Scott N, Jamali A, Verbeke C, et al. Retroperitoneal margin involvement by adenocarcinoma of the caecum and ascending colon: what does it mean? Colorectal Dis 2008; 10:289–293.
Bateman AC, Carr NJ, Warren BF. The retroperitoneal surface in distal caecal and proximal ascending colon carcinoma: the Cinderella surgical margin? J Clin Pathol 2005; 58:426–428.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Molecular testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer . 2017. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg27 . Accessed August 28, 2020.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines() Colon Cancer. 2020. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf . Accessed August 28, 2020.
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 2017; 357:409–413.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cetuximab and panitumumab for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology appraisal guidance . 2017. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439/chapter/1-Recommendations . Accessed August 28, 2020.
Pietrantonio F, Petrelli F, Coinu A, et al. Predictive role of BRAF mutations in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab and panitumumab: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51:587–594.
Morris VK, Bekaii-Saab T. Improvements in clinical outcomes for BRAF(V600E)—mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2020; 26:4435–4441.
Lankshear S, Srigley J, McGowan T, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports - so what and who cares? A population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137:1599–1602.
Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009; 99:517–524.
Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R. What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011; 135:1471–1475.
Sluijter CE, van Workum F, Wiggers T, et al. Improvement of care in patients with colorectal cancer: influence of the introduction of standardized structured reporting for pathology. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2019; 3:1–12.
Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE, et al. Global burden of 5 major types of gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 159:335–349.e315.