Fabienne Anglade1, Danny A Milner2, Jane E Brock3. 1. Department of Pathology, Mirebalais Teaching Hospital, Mirebalais, Haiti. 2. American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before initiating cancer therapy, a diagnostic tumor tissue sample evaluated within a pathology laboratory by a pathologist is essential to confirm the malignancy type and provide key prognostic factors that direct the treatment offered. METHODS: Pathology evaluation includes multiple expensive reagents, complex equipment, and both laboratory and pathologist technical skills. By using breast cancer as an example, at a minimum, key tumor prognostic information required before the initiation of treatment includes subtype, tumor grade, tumor size, lymph node status when possible, and biomarker expression determined by immunohistochemistry for estrogen receptor. The additional determination of biomarker expression of progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) is the standard of care in high-resource settings, but assays may not be affordable in low-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: With positive tests, patients are eligible for either tamoxifen (for estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive cancers) or monoclonal antibody therapy (for HER2-positive cancers). For settings in which endocrine therapy and/or HER2-targeted therapy is unavailable, biomarker studies have no utility, and high-resource setting standards for pathology evaluation and reporting are unachievable. Resource-stratified pathology evaluation guidelines in cancer diagnosis have not been developed, in contrast to excellent comprehensive, resource-stratified clinical guidelines for use in low-income and middle-income countries, and these are long overdue. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges of pathology evaluation in the context of global health are being met by innovative solutions, which may change the face of pathology practice.
BACKGROUND: Before initiating cancer therapy, a diagnostic tumor tissue sample evaluated within a pathology laboratory by a pathologist is essential to confirm the malignancy type and provide key prognostic factors that direct the treatment offered. METHODS: Pathology evaluation includes multiple expensive reagents, complex equipment, and both laboratory and pathologist technical skills. By using breast cancer as an example, at a minimum, key tumor prognostic information required before the initiation of treatment includes subtype, tumor grade, tumor size, lymph node status when possible, and biomarker expression determined by immunohistochemistry for estrogen receptor. The additional determination of biomarker expression of progesterone receptor and humanepidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) is the standard of care in high-resource settings, but assays may not be affordable in low-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: With positive tests, patients are eligible for either tamoxifen (for estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive cancers) or monoclonal antibody therapy (for HER2-positive cancers). For settings in which endocrine therapy and/or HER2-targeted therapy is unavailable, biomarker studies have no utility, and high-resource setting standards for pathology evaluation and reporting are unachievable. Resource-stratified pathology evaluation guidelines in cancer diagnosis have not been developed, in contrast to excellent comprehensive, resource-stratified clinical guidelines for use in low-income and middle-income countries, and these are long overdue. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges of pathology evaluation in the context of global health are being met by innovative solutions, which may change the face of pathology practice.
Authors: Catherine Duggan; Allison Dvaladze; Anne F Rositch; Ophira Ginsburg; Cheng-Har Yip; Susan Horton; Rolando Camacho Rodriguez; Alexandru Eniu; Miriam Mutebi; Jean-Marc Bourque; Shahla Masood; Karla Unger-Saldaña; Anna Cabanes; Robert W Carlson; Julie R Gralow; Benjamin O Anderson Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Analise LeJeune; Jane E Brock; Elizabeth A Morgan; Jennifer L Kasten; Yehoda M Martei; Temidayo Fadelu; Henry M Rinder; Robert Goulart; Lawrence N Shulman; Danny A Milner Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2020-08
Authors: Andrew Lagree; Audrey Shiner; Marie Angeli Alera; Lauren Fleshner; Ethan Law; Brianna Law; Fang-I Lu; David Dodington; Sonal Gandhi; Elzbieta A Slodkowska; Alex Shenfield; Katarzyna J Jerzak; Ali Sadeghi-Naini; William T Tran Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ming Y Lu; Richard J Chen; Dehan Kong; Jana Lipkova; Rajendra Singh; Drew F K Williamson; Tiffany Y Chen; Faisal Mahmood Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 13.828
Authors: Kayo Togawa; Benjamin O Anderson; Milena Foerster; Moses Galukande; Annelle Zietsman; Johanna Pontac; Angelica Anele; Charles Adisa; Groesbeck Parham; Leeya F Pinder; Fiona McKenzie; Joachim Schüz; Isabel Dos Santos-Silva; Valerie McCormack Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 7.396