Burgart, Lawrence J.

AimsThe diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and the interpretation of glutamine synthetase (GS) staining can be challenging on biopsies. We aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of needle biopsy diagnosis of FNH, the effect of GS immunohistochemistry on FNH diagnosis, and which histological features are most useful for the diagnosis of FNH.Methods and resultsThe study included virtual needle biopsies generated from 75 resection specimens (30 FNHs, 15 hepatocellular adenomas, 15 hepatocellular carcinomas, and 15 non‐lesional liver specimens). Pathologists were reasonably accurate (83.1%) in the diagnosis of FNH with haematoxylin and eosin alone. Ductular reaction and nodularity had the highest sensitivity for a diagnosis of FNH (88.1% and 82.2%, respectively), whereas central scar was the most specific feature (90.6%). The presence of two or more of the classic histological features had 89.6% sensitivity and 86.2% specificity for a diagnosis of FNH. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher with the addition of a GS stain. A map‐like GS staining pattern was highly specific (99.3%) for FNH. However, GS staining was interpreted as non‐map‐like in 14.4% of reviews of true FNH cases, and overall interobserver agreement for interpretation of the GS staining pattern was only moderate (kappa = 0.42).ConclusionsPathologists are reasonably accurate in the diagnosis of FNH on virtual biopsies, and GS staining improves accuracy. However, a subset of FNH cases remain challenging. Steatosis and a pseudo‐map‐like GS staining pattern were associated with increased difficulty. Therefore, although a map‐like GS staining pattern is useful for confirmation of a diagnosis, the lack of a map‐like GS staining pattern on needle biopsy does not necessarily exclude a diagnosis of FNH.

Abstract Context. —Impairment of venous outflow manifests as zone 3 sinusoidal dilatation and congestion (SDC) in liver biopsy. However, the finding of SDC is not specific for venous outflow impairment. Objectives. —To determine the specificity of SDC in liver biopsies for venous outflow impairment and to seek an explanation for SDC in patients without clinical or radiologic features of venous outflow impairment. Design. —Liver biopsies from 51 patients with sinusoidal dilatation were reviewed. Biopsies from transplant recipients, patients with cirrhosis, and patients with hepatic neoplasms (primary or metastatic) were not included. Clinical records were reviewed for laboratory tests and final clinicopathologic diagnosis. Results. —Thirty-four patients (66.7%) had confirmed venous outflow impairment. Of the 17 cases (33.3%) without clinical and/or radiologic evidence of venous outflow impairment, vascular causes were present in 5 cases (9.8%; nodular regenerative hyperplasia in 2 cases and portal vein thrombosis, congenital absence of the portal vein, and sickle cell anemia in 1 case each). Systemic inflammatory disorders were identified in 6 patients (11.8%). These included 2 cases of Castleman disease and 1 each of sarcoidosis, Crohn disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and Still disease. Three patients (5.9%) had tumors without direct involvement of the liver (1 case each of Hodgkin lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, and pancreatic serous pseudopapillary tumor). In the remaining 3 patients, SDC was identified in wedge liver biopsies performed at the time of surgery, including gastric bypass surgery, cholecystectomy, and splenectomy. No other disease association was apparent in these cases. Conclusion. —Sinusoidal dilatation and congestion in liver biopsy is associated with venous outflow impairment in two thirds of the cases. In the absence of clinical and/or radiological evidence of venous outflow, diagnostic considerations include other vascular conditions, such as portal vein insufficiency and nodular regenerative hyperplasia. Sinusoidal dilatation and congestion can also occur in the setting of systemic inflammatory diseases, granulomatous disorders, and neoplasms, as well as in wedge biopsies obtained during abdominal surgery.

Abstract Context. —Significant bench and clinical data have been generated during the last decade regarding DNA mismatch repair in colorectal carcinoma. Objectives. —To review clinically relevant aspects of defective DNA mismatch repair in colorectal carcinoma and to suggest testing algorithms for identification of these tumors in the sporadic and familial settings. Data Sources. —This article is based on literature review and clinical testing experience of more than 2000 patient samples. Conclusions. —Approximately 15% of colorectal carcinomas arise as a result of defective DNA mismatch repair. Ninety percent of these carcinomas are sporadic, arising as a result of methylation of the MLH1 gene promoter, silencing expression. These sporadic carcinomas have improved stage-specific prognosis and can be identified by demonstrating aberrant loss of expression with an MLH1 immunoperoxidase stain. Familial colorectal carcinomas with defective DNA mismatch repair (Lynch syndrome) are due to a germline defect in one of several DNA mismatch repair genes. The familial carcinomas are best identified with a combination of immunohistochemistry and molecular microsatellite analysis. This testing facilitates subsequent directed genetic testing of the proband and family members.

Abstract Urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract is relatively uncommon but may develop as a manifestation of the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC), which is characterized by mutations in a number of DNA mismatch repair genes and detectable as microsatellite instability or loss of the respective protein by immunostaining. No well-established screening test is available for urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract, and little is known of the clinical impact of screening for HNPCC in patients with upper urinary tract cancer. We describe herein a patient with a urothelial carcinoma of the ureter and a strongly positive history of cancer, who was subsequently found to have HNPCC. Our findings reinforce the importance of obtaining a comprehensive history of cancer in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter. Subsequent identification of individuals with HNPCC enables the patient and at-risk relatives to benefit from targeted surveillance and management programs.

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.

10022 Background: Patients with colon cancers displaying high frequency microsatellite instability (MSI-H) are reported to have a favorable prognosis compared to microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. However, prognostic factors underlying this observation are poorly understood. We studied apoptotic and proliferative indices and their relationship to MSI status, clinicopathological features, and patient survival rates. Methods: Archival Dukes’ stage B2 (n=83) and C (n=246) primary colon adenocarcinomas from patients enrolled in five 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy trials were analyzed for MSI using a PCR-based assay (MSI-H: ≥30% of loci with instability), and expression of hMLH1, hMSH2 and p53 proteins by immunostaining. Apoptosis was analyzed by the TUNEL assay and the proliferative index (PI: S phase + G2M) and DNA ploidy by flow cytometry. Correlations between markers and associations with overall survival (OS) censored at 8 yrs were sought. Results: MSI-H (n=58.18%) tumors were more likely proximal, diploid, high grade, p53 negative (vs. MSS/MSI-L; all p<0.0001), and from women (p=0.002). Of 58 MSH-H cases tested, 54 showed loss of hMLH1 (n=50) or hMSH2 (n=4) proteins. Median proliferative index (PI) [12.6 vs. 17.4; p=0.0002] was reduced in MSI-H versus MSS/MSI-L tumors. Lower PI was associated with diploidy (p<0.0001) and negative p53 expression (p=0.003). Apoptotic indices (AIs) were increased in MSI-H cancers (vs. MSS/MSI-L, p=0.082), as was the AI/PI ratio (p=0.0065). Interestingly, AI (p=0.02) and AI/PI (p<0.0001) were significantly increased in diploid versus nondiploid tumors, and after removal of MSI-H cases, relationships held for PI and AI/PI with ploidy. Better OS was related to MSI-H (p=0.032), loss of hMLH1 or hMSH2 (p=0.024), diploidy (p=0.0015), and lower PI (p=0.078), but not AI, AI/PI, nor p53 (adjusting for stage, grade, treatment and stratifying by study). Conclusions: MSI-H tumors are characterized by reduced proliferative indices and a higher ratio of apoptosis to proliferation, reflecting slower tumor growth rates compared to MSS/MSI-L tumors. These features may contribute to their better survival. Lower PI and increased AI/PI are also features of diploid MSS cancers. [Table: see text]

Small intestinal biopsy interpretation has been the cornerstone for the diagnosis of celiac disease for over 50 years. Despite the existence of sensitive and specific serological tests, duodenal mucosal biopsies continue to be obtained in the vast majority of patients in whom a diagnosis of celiac disease is being considered. The accurate evaluation of these biopsies requires coordination and information sharing between the gastroenterologist, laboratory, and pathologist in order to optimize tissue sampling, preparation and interpretation. This document, a collaboration between the Rodger C. Haggitt Gastrointestinal Pathology Society and the North American Association for the Study of Celiac Disease, is intended to provide clinicians and pathologists with a summary of best practices in the use of endoscopy and biopsy for patients with suspected celiac disease. The authors present a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the literature with respect to the topics of endoscopic findings, best methods for the obtaining biopsies, completing the pathology form and pathologic assessment, including evaluating intraepithelial lymphocytes and villous architecture. A discussion of conditions with overlapping pathologic findings in duodenal mucosal biopsies is presented. In order to provide additional guidance for challenging situations, the authors include an appendix containing practical suggestions. This review may be utilized in interdisciplinary discussions to optimize care for patients with possible celiac disease.