Chetty, Runjan

Enteroblastic, hepatoid, and clear cell carcinomas are rare subtypes of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) with histologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) overlap. We assessed 37 CRCs that possibly represent these subtypes. Provisional criteria for each subtype, along with case photomicrographs and IHC data, were circulated among the authors to provide diagnostic interpretations. Based on plurality consensus, the carcinomas were classified as enteroblastic (n=13), hepatoid (n=6), and clear cell (n=18). Unanimous agreement was reached in 18% (3 clear cell, 3 hepatoid). Interobserver analysis revealed a mean pairwise Cohen κ of 0.63 (range: 0.32 to 0.91), with the hepatoid subtype eliciting the greatest consensus. Clear cell areas were the most likely to intermix with areas of conventional CRC ( P <0.001). Seven patients (20%) had inflammatory bowel disease (mostly linked to enteroblastic CRC). Twenty-three of 34 patients (68%) had nodal metastasis, and 12 (32%) had distant metastasis (mostly to the liver) at presentation. Median recurrence-free survival was 17 months, with enteroblastic cases the most likely to recur (54%, P =0.015). Median follow-up length was 27 months, with 14 patients (40%) dying of disease (representing 7 enteroblastic, 4 hepatoid, and 3 clear cell CRC). Mutations were identified in TP53 (n=8) , APC (n=3) , FBXW7 (n=2), and KRAS (n=1). Inflammatory bowel disease significantly worsened recurrence-free survival on multivariate analysis, while distant metastasis significantly worsened both recurrence-free and overall survival on multivariate analysis. Enteroblastic, hepatoid, and clear cell CRC demonstrate morphologic and IHC overlap, leading to interobserver variability in diagnosis. Given potential differences in clinical correlations and outcomes, more refined criteria are likely necessary.

AimsWe compiled two cohorts of colorectal adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) to describe its histologic and molecular aspects using modern parameters to compare them with literature reports using meta‐analysis of cohorts and individual case series.Methods and ResultsWe identified 53 colorectal ASC from 19 North American academic medical centres, in addition to national database reports on 94 Dutch cases. We analysed available clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical features and patient outcome. ASC comprised 0.02% of colorectal cancers in the Dutch database. The median cohort patient ages at resection were 65 and 69 years (North American and Dutch cohorts, respectively), with a roughly equal male:female ratio. The squamous component represented between 5% and 95% of each tumour, with a median of 50%. Tumour‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were generally low (66%), and tumour budding was often Bd1 (64%). Most cases were pT3 (55%) or pT4 (40%), with nodal metastases in more than half (58%). Twenty‐three cases (43%) metastasized distantly, most commonly to the liver. Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was identified in 34% of the cases. Follow‐up was available for 48 patients; 13 (27%) had recurrent disease and 29 (60%) died. A total of 31 patients progressed, with median time to progression of 18 months. Available data for the Dutch cohort revealed largely similar findings, as did review of cases in the literature.ConclusionColorectal ASC usually presents at an advanced stage. Despite high rates of MMR deficiency and low tumour budding, TILs were generally low, and there is a high recurrence rate and poor prognosis.

Currently, there are no internationally accepted consensus guidelines for pathologic evaluation of posttherapy pancreatectomy specimens. The Neoadjuvant Therapy Working Group of Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society was formed in 2018 to review grossing protocols, literature, and major issues and to develop recommendations for pathologic evaluation of posttherapy pancreatectomy specimens. The working group generated the following recommendations: (1) Systematic and standardized grossing and sampling protocols should be adopted for pancreatectomy specimens for treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). (2) Consecutive mapping sections along the largest gross tumor dimension are recommended to validate tumor size by histology as required by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cancer protocol. (3) Tumor size of treated PDACs should be measured microscopically as the largest dimension of tumor outer limits that is bound by viable tumor cells, including intervening stroma. (4) The MD Anderson grading system for tumor response has a better correlation with prognosis and better interobserver concordance among pathologists than does the CAP system. (5) A case should not be classified as a complete response unless the entire pancreas, peripancreatic tissues, ampulla of Vater, common bile duct, and duodenum adjacent to the pancreas are submitted for microscopic examination. (6) Future studies on tumor response of lymph node metastases, molecular and/or immunohistochemical markers, as well as application of artificial intelligence in grading tumor response of treated PDAC are needed. In summary, systematic, standardized pathologic evaluation, accurate tumor size measurement, and reproducible tumor response grading to neoadjuvant therapy are needed for optimal patient care. The criteria and discussions provided here may provide guidance towards these goals.