Varying practices in tumor regression grading of gastrointestinal carcinomas after neoadjuvant therapy: results of an international survey

Westerhoff, Maria; Osecky, Marek; Langer, Rupert (2020). Varying practices in tumor regression grading of gastrointestinal carcinomas after neoadjuvant therapy: results of an international survey. Modern pathology, 33(4), pp. 676-689. Nature Publishing Group 10.1038/s41379-019-0393-7

Text s41379-019-0393-7.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (2MB)

Tumor regression grading is routinely performed on neoadjuvantly treated gastrointestinal cancer resections. Challenges in tumor regression grading include grossing standards, multiple grading systems, and difficulty interpreting therapy-induced changes. We surveyed gastrointestinal pathologists around the world for their practices in handling neoadjuvantly treated gastrointestinal cancer specimens and reporting tumor regression using a 23-question online survey. Topics addressed grossing, histologic work-up, tumor regression grading systems, and degree of difficulty identifying and estimating residual cancer within treatment effect. Two-hundred three responses were received, including 173 participants who completed the entire questionnaire. Fifty percent of the participants were from Europe, 29% from North America, 10% from Australia, and 11% from other continents. Ninety-five percent routinely report a tumor regression grade and 92% have standardized grossing and histologic work-up: 27% always completely embed the entire tumor bed, 54% embed the complete tumor site if not a grossly apparent, large mass. Fifty-nine percent use hematoxylin & eosin alone for assessment; the remaining use additional stains. In North America and Australia, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/College of American Pathologists (CAP)/Ryan system is routinely used for gastroesophageal (71%) and rectal carcinomas (77%). In Europe, the Mandard system is common (36%) for gastroesophageal tumors, followed by AJCC/CAP/Ryan (22%), and Becker (10%); for rectal CA, the Dworak system (30%) is followed by AJCC/CAP/Ryan (24%) and Mandard (14%). This regional differences were significant (p < 0.001 each). Fifty-one percent prefer a four-tiered system. Sixty-six percent think that regressive changes in lymph nodes should be part of a regression grade. Sixty-nine percent consider identifying residual tumor straight-forward, but estimating therapy-induced fibrosis difficult (57%). Free comments raised issues of costs for work-up and clinical relevance. In conclusion, this multinational survey provides a comprehensive overview of grossing and histologic work-up with regards to tumor regression grading in gastrointestinal cancers with partly significant regional differences particularly between North America and Europe.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

2 since deposited on 12 Nov 2019
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item