Compton, Carolyn C.

PURPOSE The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines .

Abstract Background. —Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, the current state of knowledge regarding pathologic prognostic factors (factors linked to outcome) and predictive factors (factors predicting response to therapy) in colorectal carcinoma was evaluated. A multidisciplinary group of clinical (including the disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology), pathologic, and statistical experts in colorectal cancer reviewed all relevant medical literature and stratified the reported prognostic factors into categories that reflected the strength of the published evidence demonstrating their prognostic value. Accordingly, the following categories of prognostic factors were defined. Category I includes factors definitively proven to be of prognostic import based on evidence from multiple statistically robust published trials and generally used in patient management. Category IIA includes factors extensively studied biologically and/or clinically and repeatedly shown to have prognostic value for outcome and/or predictive value for therapy that is of sufficient import to be included in the pathology report but that remains to be validated in statistically robust studies. Category IIB includes factors shown to be promising in multiple studies but lacking sufficient data for inclusion in category I or IIA. Category III includes factors not yet sufficiently studied to determine their prognostic value. Category IV includes factors well studied and shown to have no prognostic significance. Materials and Methods. —The medical literature was critically reviewed, and the analysis revealed specific points of variability in approach that prevented direct comparisons among published studies and compromised the quality of the collective data. Categories of variability recognized included the following: (1) methods of analysis, (2) interpretation of findings, (3) reporting of data, and (4) statistical evaluation. Additional points of variability within these categories were defined from the collective experience of the group. Reasons for the assignment of an individual prognostic factor to category I, II, III, or IV (categories defined by the level of scientific validation) were outlined with reference to the specific types of variability associated with the supportive data. For each factor and category of variability related to that factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) to increase the uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) to enhance the quality of the data needed for definitive evaluation of the prognostic value of individual prognostic factors, and (3) ultimately, to improve patient care. Results and Conclusions. —Factors that were determined to merit inclusion in category I were as follows: the local extent of tumor assessed pathologically (the pT category of the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer [AJCC/UICC]); regional lymph node metastasis (the pN category of the TNM staging system); blood or lymphatic vessel invasion; residual tumor following surgery with curative intent (the R classification of the AJCC/UICC staging system), especially as it relates to positive surgical margins; and preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen elevation (a factor established by laboratory medicine methods rather than anatomic pathology). Factors in category IIA included the following: tumor grade, radial margin status (for resection specimens with nonperitonealized surfaces), and residual tumor in the resection specimen following neoadjuvant therapy (the ypTNM category of the TNM staging system of the AJCC/UICC). Factors in category IIB included the following: histologic type, histologic features associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) (ie, host lymphoid response to tumor and medullary or mucinous histologic type), high degree of MSI (MSI-H), loss of heterozygosity at 18q ( DCC gene allelic loss), and tumor border configuration (infiltrating vs pushing border). Factors grouped in category III included the following: DNA content, all other molecular markers except loss of heterozygosity 18q/DCC and MSI-H, perineural invasion, microvessel density, tumor cell–associated proteins or carbohydrates, peritumoral fibrosis, peritumoral inflammatory response, focal neuroendocrine differentiation, nuclear organizing regions, and proliferation indices. Category IV factors included tumor size and gross tumor configuration. This report records findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines defined herein.

Biospecimens acquired during routine medical practice are the primary sources of molecular information about patients and their diseases that underlies precision medicine and translational research. In cancer care, molecular analysis of biospecimens is especially common because it often determines treatment choices and may be used to monitor therapy in real time. However, patient specimens are collected, handled, and processed according to routine clinical procedures during which they are subjected to factors that may alter their molecular quality and composition. Such artefactual alteration may skew data from molecular analyses, render analysis data uninterpretable, or even preclude analysis altogether if the integrity of a specimen is severely compromised. As a result, patient care and safety may be affected, and medical research dependent on patient samples may be compromised. Despite these issues, there is currently no requirement to control or record preanalytical variables in clinical practice with the single exception of breast cancer tissue handled according to the guideline jointly developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (CAP) and enforced through the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program. Recognizing the importance of molecular data derived from patient specimens, the CAP Personalized Healthcare Committee established the Preanalytics for Precision Medicine Project Team to develop a basic set of evidence-based recommendations for key preanalytics for tissue and blood specimens. If used for biospecimens from patients, these preanalytical recommendations would ensure the fitness of those specimens for molecular analysis and help to assure the quality and reliability of the analysis data.

Integrating diverse types of prognostic information into accurate, individualized estimates of outcome in colorectal cancer is challenging. Significant heterogeneity in colorectal cancer prognostication tool quality exists. Methodology is incompletely or inadequately reported. Evaluations of the internal or external validity of the prognostic model are rarely performed. Prognostication tools are important devices for patient management, but tool reliability is compromised by poor quality. Guidance for future development of prognostication tools in colorectal cancer is needed.

PURPOSE: We postulated that the pathologic evaluation of the lymph nodes of surgical specimens from patients with rectal cancer can have a substantial impact on time to relapse and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 1,664 patients with T3, T4, or node-positive rectal cancer treated in a national intergroup trial of adjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Associations between the number of lymph nodes found by the pathologist in the surgical specimen and the time to relapse and survival outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into groups by nodal status and the corresponding quartiles of numbers of nodes examined. The number of nodes examined was significantly associated with time to relapse and survival among patients who were node-negative. For the first through fourth quartiles, the 5-year relapse rates were 0.37, 0.34, 0.26, and 0.19 (P = .003), and the 5-year survival rates were 0.68, 0.73, 0.72, and 0.82 (P = .02). No significant differences were found by quartiles among patients determined to be node-positive. We propose that observed differences are primarily related to the incorrect determination of nodal status in node-negative patients. Approximately 14 nodes need to be studied to define nodal status accurately. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the pathologic assessment of lymph nodes in surgical specimens is often inaccurate and that examining greater number of nodes increases the likelihood of proper staging. Some patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy are misclassified as node-negative due to incomplete sampling of lymph nodes.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM‐based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a “population‐based” to a more “personalized” approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge‐based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as “what's new” in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Abstract The 2007 Santa Monica Conference on Assessing and Treating Early-Stage Colon and Rectal Cancer, a multidisciplinary meeting of leaders in surgery, medical and radiation oncology, and pathology, was convened on January 12 to 13, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to assess current data and issues in the field and to develop recommendations for advancing patient care and clinical research. Topics included pathologic assessment and staging, transanal versus laparoscopic versus open resection, adjuvant therapy, genetic testing and counseling, cooperative group strategies, and the use of biological therapies and novel agents. A review of the key issues discussed, as well as conclusions and recommendations considered significant to the field, is summarized below and presented at greater length in the individual manuscripts and accompanying discussion that comprise the full conference proceedings. Although the management of early-stage colon and rectal cancers remains a challenge for all of us, the development and use of new technologies and methods of assessment and treatment over the past several decades is yielding encouraging results. A variety of opportunities to further improve outcomes were addressed in this forum, including recommendations that specific protocols be adopted regarding surgical and pathologic dissection and reporting, particularly for stage II disease; the corollary need to increase active multidisciplinary collaboration; and the development of comprehensive consensus guidelines and recommendations to standardize care in early-stage colorectal cancer.