A Simple Morphometric Analysis of Preoperative Therapy Response for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Madhurya Ramineni, Rena X Li, Xiaoyan Liao, Yansheng Hao
{"title":"A Simple Morphometric Analysis of Preoperative Therapy Response for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.","authors":"Madhurya Ramineni, Rena X Li, Xiaoyan Liao, Yansheng Hao","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0167-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Histologic assessment of tumor regression grade (TRG) on esophagogastrectomy specimens after neoadjuvant therapy is an excellent predictor of local recurrence rate and long-term survival in esophageal adenocarcinomas. Although several grading systems exist globally, the modified Ryan system suggested by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) is widely used in North America. Most systems rely on quantitative percentage estimation of the residual tumor with or without additional qualitative descriptors, which is relatively subjective with poor interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To test a morphometric-based approach using the microscopic objective lens to estimate the size of the largest focus of the residual tumor.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>A total of 69 esophageal specimens post neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Tumor size was morphometrically determined by the microscopic field, using an Olympus microscope with ×10/×22 eyepieces. Residual viable tumor was categorized into 4 groups, using ×2, ×4, and ×10 objectives: less than or equal to an ×10 field; larger than an ×10 field but less than or equal to an ×4 field; larger than an ×4 field but less than an ×2 field; and larger than or equal to an ×2 field.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Morphometric measurements significantly correlated with the CAP treatment effect scores. There was no significant difference in overall survival between larger than or equal to ×2 and ×2 to ×4 groups; however, a 3-tier system (TRG1: ≤ ×10, TRG2: > ×10 and ≤ ×4, and TRG3: > ×4) showed significant survival differences (P = .01). Significant differences in the percentage of lymphovascular and perineural invasion, advanced TNM stage, and lymph node metastasis were identified among the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>The proposed 3-tier morphometric approach based on microscopic field size is a simple and easy-to-use method, which helps stratify patients into 3 groups with distinct histopathologic features and overall survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0167-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Histologic assessment of tumor regression grade (TRG) on esophagogastrectomy specimens after neoadjuvant therapy is an excellent predictor of local recurrence rate and long-term survival in esophageal adenocarcinomas. Although several grading systems exist globally, the modified Ryan system suggested by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) is widely used in North America. Most systems rely on quantitative percentage estimation of the residual tumor with or without additional qualitative descriptors, which is relatively subjective with poor interobserver agreement.

Objective.—: To test a morphometric-based approach using the microscopic objective lens to estimate the size of the largest focus of the residual tumor.

Design.—: A total of 69 esophageal specimens post neoadjuvant therapy were evaluated. Tumor size was morphometrically determined by the microscopic field, using an Olympus microscope with ×10/×22 eyepieces. Residual viable tumor was categorized into 4 groups, using ×2, ×4, and ×10 objectives: less than or equal to an ×10 field; larger than an ×10 field but less than or equal to an ×4 field; larger than an ×4 field but less than an ×2 field; and larger than or equal to an ×2 field.

Results.—: Morphometric measurements significantly correlated with the CAP treatment effect scores. There was no significant difference in overall survival between larger than or equal to ×2 and ×2 to ×4 groups; however, a 3-tier system (TRG1: ≤ ×10, TRG2: > ×10 and ≤ ×4, and TRG3: > ×4) showed significant survival differences (P = .01). Significant differences in the percentage of lymphovascular and perineural invasion, advanced TNM stage, and lymph node metastasis were identified among the 3 groups.

Conclusions.—: The proposed 3-tier morphometric approach based on microscopic field size is a simple and easy-to-use method, which helps stratify patients into 3 groups with distinct histopathologic features and overall survival.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Technical Competency Assessment of Peripheral Blood Smears: Tools and Trends Learned From 2 College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Studies. The Significance of Detecting an Unusual Myeloblast Immunophenotype in a Presumptive Clinical Diagnosis of Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Deployment of a Machine Learning Algorithm in a Real-World Cohort for Quality Control Monitoring of Human Epidermal Growth Factor-2-Stained Clinical Specimens in Breast Cancer. Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma Updates: Histology, Cytology, and Grading. A Simple Morphometric Analysis of Preoperative Therapy Response for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1