Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Mod Pathol. 2024 Jan;37(1):100353. doi: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100353. Epub 2023 Oct 14.
Neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer challenges the traditional processing of pathology specimens. Induction therapy before resection allows evaluation of the efficacy of neoadjuvant agents at the time of surgery. Many clinical trials use pathologic tumor response, measured as major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% residual viable tumor [RVT]) or complete pathologic response (CPR, 0% RVT) as a surrogate of clinical efficacy. Consequently, accurate pathologic evaluation of RVT is crucial. However, pathologic assessment has not been uniform, which is particularly true for sampling of the primary tumor, which instead of the traditional processing, requires different tissue submission because the focus has shifted from tumor typing alone to RVT scoring. Using a simulation study, we analyzed the accuracy rates of %RVT, MPR, and CPR of 31 pretreated primary lung tumors using traditional grossing compared with the gold standard of submitting the entire residual primary tumor and identified the minimum number of tumor sections to be submitted to ensure the most accurate scoring of %RVT, MPR, and CPR. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR calls were achieved in 52%, 87%, and 81% of cases, respectively, using the traditional grossing method. Accuracy rates of at least 90% for these parameters require either submission of all residual primary tumor or at least 20 tumor sections. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR scores cannot be achieved with traditional tumor grossing. Submission of the entire primary tumor, up to a maximum of 20 sections, is required for the most accurate reads.
新辅助治疗非小细胞肺癌对传统的病理学标本处理提出了挑战。在切除前进行诱导治疗可以在手术时评估新辅助药物的疗效。许多临床试验使用病理肿瘤反应作为替代临床疗效的指标,包括主要病理反应(MPR,≤10%残留活肿瘤[RVT])或完全病理反应(CPR,0%RVT)。因此,准确评估 RVT 至关重要。然而,病理评估并不统一,尤其是原发性肿瘤的取样,传统处理需要不同的组织提交,因为重点已经从单纯的肿瘤分型转移到 RVT 评分。通过模拟研究,我们分析了 31 例预处理原发性肺癌肿瘤的传统大体检查的%RVT、MPR 和 CPR 的准确率,与提交整个残余原发性肿瘤的金标准进行比较,并确定了要提交的最小肿瘤切片数量,以确保%RVT、MPR 和 CPR 的评分最准确。使用传统大体检查方法,分别有 52%、87%和 81%的病例能够准确地获得%RVT、MPR 和 CPR 的读数。这些参数的准确率至少达到 90%需要提交所有残余原发性肿瘤或至少 20 个肿瘤切片。传统的肿瘤大体检查不能获得准确的%RVT、MPR 和 CPR 评分。需要提交整个原发性肿瘤,最多可提交 20 个切片,以获得最准确的结果。