Lee, Hwajeong

Aims The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) colorectal carcinoma (CRC) protocol specify use of a four‐tiered grading system (i.e. grades 1–4; well‐differentiated–undifferentiated) for CRC, based on percentage of gland formation. The World Health Organization (WHO) 5th edition grades CRC into low‐grade (well‐ and moderately differentiated) and high‐grade (poorly and undifferentiated), based on the least differentiated component. We studied interobserver agreement and practice patterns among pathologists when grading CRC by these two grading systems. Methods and results Five gastrointestinal pathologists reviewed 100 scanned CRC slides and graded the tumour on each slide, per provided criteria in (a) WHO 5th edition book, (b) AJCC manual/CAP CRC protocol and (c) their clinical practice. A questionnaire for grading selected CRC subtypes was also provided. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's χ 2 test and Fleiss multi‐rater kappa analyses. Overall, agreement among the five reviewers when grading via WHO and AJCC criteria for low‐grade and high‐grade CRC was moderate ( κ = 0.568, P < 0.001) and good ( κ = 0.611, P < 0.001), respectively. All reviewers graded significantly more tumours as high‐grade when using WHO (median = 46) versus AJCC/CAP criteria (median = 20). Conclusions Interobserver agreement was higher using the AJCC grading criteria as a two‐tiered system. Significantly more tumours were called high‐grade using the WHO criteria. This raises concerns regarding upgrading tumours, as well as potential differences in grading tumours among pathologists worldwide, based on regional preferred grading systems. Synchronisation of these two grading systems is necessary for uniform grading of CRCs throughout institutions.

Objectives Misplaced epithelium in adenomas can occasionally be difficult to distinguish from invasive adenocarcinoma. We evaluated interobserver variability in the assessment of left-sided colon polypectomies for pseudoinvasion versus invasive adenocarcinoma and further investigated relevant histological findings. Methods 28 consecutive left-sided colon polyps with the keywords “pseudoinvasion”, “epithelial misplacement”, “herniation”, “prolapse” or “invasive adenocarcinoma” were collected from 28 patients and reviewed by eight gastrointestinal pathologists. Participants assessed stromal hemosiderin, lamina propria/eosinophils surrounding glands, desmoplasia, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma and margin status and rendered a diagnosis of pseudoinvasion, invasive adenocarcinoma, or both. Results Agreement among pathologists was substantial for desmoplasia (κ=0.70), high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma (κ=0.66), invasive adenocarcinoma (κ=0.63) and adenocarcinoma at the margin (κ=0.65). There was moderate agreement for hemosiderin in stroma (κ=0.53) and prolapse/pseudoinvasion (κ=0.50). Agreement was low for lamina propria/eosinophils around glands (κ=0.12). For invasive adenocarcinoma, seven or more pathologists agreed in 24 of 28 cases (86%), and there was perfect agreement in 19/28 cases (68%). For pseudoinvasion, seven or more pathologists agreed in 19 of 28 cases (68%), and there was perfect agreement in 16/28 cases (57%). Conclusion Moderate to substantial, though imperfect, agreement was achieved in the distinction of pseudoinvasion from invasive carcinoma.

Aims Routine application of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited due to lack of standardized scoring criteria, antibody clones, and intratumoral staining heterogeneity. We assessed PD-L1 protein expression on full face CRC tissue sections and applied two algorithms based on the published clinical trials that support the recent FDA approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPI) therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods PD-L1/CD274 IHC (Roche/Ventana, clone SP142) was performed on representative tumour blocks from 52 mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-D) and 52 MMR-proficient (MMR-P) CRCs. Membranous PD-L1 expression was scored for the tumour cell (TC) and tumour-infiltrating immune cell (IC) components. PD-L1 positivity status was determined based on the published NSCLC clinical trials that utilized the Ventana SP142 assay. Hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed on a separate set of 2268 clinically advanced CRCs and the frequency of PD-L1/PD-L2 amplification was determined. Results PD-L1 expression in the TC and IC correlated with MMR-D (p=0.013, p<0.0001), T stage (p=0.036, p=0.0036) and clinical stage (p=0.022, p=0.0037). PD-L1 positivity status correlated with MMR-D by two algorithms. Five of 2268 (<1%) advansced CRCs demonstrated amplification of either the PD-L1 or PD-L2 genes by CGP. Conclusions PD-L1 expression in TC and IC is associated with advanced stage and MMR-D. PD-L1 positivity status by the published algorithm is associated with MMR-D. PD-L1 amplification is extremely uncommon in CRC. Evaluation of whole tissue section and incorporation of IC staining enhance the sensitivity to screen patients who may benefit from ICPI therapy.