Ryska, Ales

The 6th edition of the WHO Classification of Breast Tumours introduces both major and minor changes based on recent advances in our understanding of breast biology, developments in diagnostic modalities, identification of specific molecular targets and new treatment regimens necessitating modifications to pathology reporting and tumour biomarker categorisation. This review summarises the main changes that strive towards a classification of global relevance. In invasive carcinoma, predictive factors increasingly inform modern breast cancer treatment. The 6th edition provides an update on HER2 reporting categories following the DESTINY‐Breast 04 and 06 trials. Terminologies used to classify invasive tumours are clarified, with the term ‘variant’ now reserved for molecular/genetic alterations. Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) with extracellular mucin is recognised as a new diagnostic entity with prognostic implications. The diagnosis of mucinous carcinoma (MC) is reserved for mucin secreting carcinomas with grade 1 or 2 morphology and a favourable biomarker profile. The diagnosis of malignant phyllodes tumours requires only four of the original five adverse histological criteria. Classification of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) is revised, recognising that the unified model, promoted in the 5th edition, is difficult to apply to the breast. New approaches to the classification of adenomyoepithelioma are discussed but the 5th edition system is broadly retained. A new section on ‘Small Diagnostic Samples’ outlines the merits of non‐operative biopsy diagnosis, the B coding system and the importance of multidisciplinary review. Changes to diagnostic practice and the emerging role of artificial intelligence, with advantages and challenges, are discussed in a new section on ‘Digital Pathology’.

Abstract Context Noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) was introduced as a new entity replacing the diagnosis of noninvasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Significant variability in the incidence of NIFTP diagnosed in different world regions has been reported. Objective To investigate the rate of adoption of NIFTP, change in practice patterns, and uniformity in applying diagnostic criteria among pathologists practicing in different regions. Methods Two surveys distributed to pathologists of the International Endocrine Pathology Discussion Group with multiple-choice questions on NIFTP adoption into pathology practice and whole slide images of 5 tumors to collect information on nuclear score and diagnosis. Forty-eight endocrine pathologists, including 24 from North America, 8 from Europe, and 16 from Asia/Oceania completed the first survey and 38 the second survey. Results A 94% adoption rate of NIFTP by the pathologists was found. Yet, the frequency of rendering NIFTP diagnosis was significantly higher in North America than in other regions (P = .009). While the highest concordance was found in diagnosing lesions with mildly or well-developed PTC-like nuclei, there was significant variability in nuclear scoring and diagnosing NIFTP for tumors with moderate nuclear changes (nuclear score 2) (case 2, P < .05). Pathologists practicing in North America and Europe showed a tendency for lower thresholds for PTC-like nuclei and NIFTP than those practicing in Asia/Oceania. Conclusion Despite a high adoption rate of NIFTP across geographic regions, NIFTP is diagnosed more often by pathologists in North America. Significant differences remain in diagnosing intermediate PTC-like nuclei and respectively NIFTP, with more conservative nuclear scoring in Asia/Oceania, which may explain the geographic differences in NIFTP incidence.