Cree, Ian A.

Abstract Background Laboratory medicine has reached the era where promises of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) seem palpable. Currently, the primary responsibility for risk-benefit assessment in clinical practice resides with the medical director. Unfortunately, there is no tool or concept that enables diagnostic quality assessment for the various potential AI/ML applications. Specifically, we noted that an operational definition of laboratory diagnostic quality – for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML improvements – is currently missing. Methods A session at the 3rd Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine in 2022 on “ AI in the Laboratory of the Future” prompted an expert roundtable discussion. Here we present a conceptual diagnostic quality framework for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML implementations. Results The presented framework is termed diagnostic quality model (DQM) and distinguishes AI/ML improvements at the test, procedure, laboratory, or healthcare ecosystem level. The operational definition illustrates the nested relationship among these levels. The model can help to define relevant objectives for implementation and how levels come together to form coherent diagnostics. The affected levels are referred to as scope and we provide a rubric to quantify AI/ML improvements while complying with existing, mandated regulatory standards. We present 4 relevant clinical scenarios including multi-modal diagnostics and compare the model to existing quality management systems. Conclusions A diagnostic quality model is essential to navigate the complexities of clinical AI/ML implementations. The presented diagnostic quality framework can help to specify and communicate the key implications of AI/ML solutions in laboratory diagnostics.

AbstractThe WHO Classification of Tumours provides the international standards for the classification and diagnosis of tumours. It enables direct comparisons to be made between different countries. In the new fifth edition, the series has gone digital with the launch of a website as well as a series of books, known widely as the WHO Blue Books. The first volume to be produced is on the classification of Digestive System tumours, replacing the successful 2010 version. It has been rewritten and updated accordingly. This article summarises the major diagnostic innovations that have occurred over the last decade and that have now been incorporated in the classification. As an example, it incorporates the recently proposed classification of neuroendocrine tumours, based on the recognition that neuroendocrine tumours and carcinomas differ substantially in the genetic abnormalities that drive their growth, findings relevant to treatment selection and outcome prediction. Several themes have emerged during the production process. One is the importance of the progression from hyperplasia to dysplasia to carcinoma in the evolution of the malignant process. Advances in imaging techniques and endoscopy have resulted in enhanced access to precancerous lesions in the gastrointestinal and biliary tract, necessitating both changes in classification schema and clinical practice. Diagnosis of tumours is no longer the sole purview of pathologists, and some patients now receive treatment before tissue is obtained, based on clinical, radiological and liquid biopsy results. This makes the classification relevant to many disciplines involved in the care of patients with tumours of the digestive system.

Abstract cIMPACT‐NOW (the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy) was established to evaluate and make practical recommendations on recent advances in the field of CNS tumor classification, particularly in light of the rapid progress in molecular insights into these neoplasms. For Round 2 of its deliberations, cIMPACT‐NOW Working Committee 3 was reconstituted and convened in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for a meeting designed to review putative new CNS tumor types in advance of any future World Health Organization meeting on CNS tumor classification. In preparatory activities for the meeting and at the actual meeting, a list of possible entities was assembled and each type and subtype debated. Working Committee 3 recommended that a substantial number of newly recognized types and subtypes should be considered for inclusion in future CNS tumor classifications. In addition, the group endorsed a number of principles—relating to classification categories, approaches to classification, nomenclature, and grading—that the group hopes will also inform the future classification of CNS neoplasms.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.