Literature DB >> 33041332

Amsterdam International Consensus Meeting: tumor response scoring in the pathology assessment of resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Boris V Janssen1,2, Faik Tutucu1,3, Stijn van Roessel2, Volkan Adsay3, Olca Basturk4, Fiona Campbell5, Claudio Doglioni6, Irene Esposito7, Roger Feakins8, Noriyoshi Fukushima9, Anthony J Gill10, Ralph H Hruban11, Jeffrey Kaplan12, Bas Groot Koerkamp13, Seung-Mo Hong14, Alyssa Krasinskas15, Claudio Luchini16, Johan Offerhaus17, Arantza Fariña Sarasqueta1, Chanjuan Shi18, Aatur Singhi19, Thomas F Stoop2,20, Eline C Soer1, Elizabeth Thompson11, Geertjan van Tienhoven21, Marie-Louise F Velthuysen22, Johanna W Wilmink23, Marc G Besselink2, Lodewijk A A Brosens17,24, Huamin Wang25, Caroline S Verbeke26, Joanne Verheij27.   

Abstract

Histopathologically scoring the response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to neoadjuvant treatment can guide the selection of adjuvant therapy and improve prognostic stratification. However, several tumor response scoring (TRS) systems exist, and consensus is lacking as to which system represents best practice. An international consensus meeting on TRS took place in November 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Here, we provide an overview of the outcomes and consensus statements that originated from this meeting. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached on a total of seven statements: (1) TRS is important because it provides information about the effect of neoadjuvant treatment that is not provided by other histopathology-based descriptors. (2) TRS for resected PDAC following neoadjuvant therapy should assess residual (viable) tumor burden instead of tumor regression. (3) The CAP scoring system is considered the most adequate scoring system to date because it is based on the presence and amount of residual cancer cells instead of tumor regression. (4) The defining criteria of the categories in the CAP scoring system should be improved by replacing subjective terms including "minimal" or "extensive" with objective criteria to evaluate the extent of viable tumor. (5) The improved, consensus-based system should be validated retrospectively and prospectively. (6) Prospective studies should determine the extent of tissue sampling that is required to ensure adequate assessment of the residual cancer burden, taking into account the heterogeneity of tumor response. (7) In future scientific publications, the extent of tissue sampling should be described in detail in the "Materials and methods" section.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33041332     DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-00683-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  10 in total

1.  ASO Author Reflections: Prognostic Index after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (PINC) in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma as Novel Tumor Regression Grading System.

Authors:  Miriam Redegalli; Marco Schiavo Lena
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-02-20       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Response to: Commentary on: "Nationwide Validation of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System and Five Proposed Modifications for Resected Pancreatic Cancer".

Authors:  T J Schouten; L A Daamen; H C van Santvoort; I Q Molenaar
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 4.339

Review 3.  Critical issues in pathologic evaluation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resected after neoadjuvant treatment: a narrative review.

Authors:  Mehran Taherian; Huamin Wang
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-06-16

4.  Proposal for a New Pathologic Prognostic Index After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PINC).

Authors:  M Redegalli; M Schiavo Lena; M Reni; C Doglioni; M G Cangi; C E Smart; M Mori; C Fiorino; P G Arcidiacono; G Balzano; M Falconi
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Pathologic Examination of Pancreatic Specimens Resected for Treated Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Recommendations From the Pancreatobiliary Pathology Society.

Authors:  Huamin Wang; Runjan Chetty; Mojgan Hosseini; Daniela S Allende; Irene Esposito; Yoko Matsuda; Vikram Deshpande; Jiaqi Shi; Deepti Dhall; Kee-Taek Jang; Grace E Kim; Claudio Luchini; Rondell P Graham; Michelle D Reid; Olca Basturk; Ralph H Hruban; Alyssa Krasinskas; David S Klimstra; Volkan Adsay
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 6.298

6.  Stroma composition and proliferative activity are related to therapy response in neoadjuvant treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Lena Haeberle; Andrea Cacciato Insilla; Anne-Christine Kapp; Katja Steiger; Anna Melissa Schlitter; Björn Konukiewitz; Ihsan Ekin Demir; Helmut Friess; Irene Esposito
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Impact of histological response after neoadjuvant therapy on podocalyxin as a prognostic marker in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Annika Eurola; Ari Ristimäki; Harri Mustonen; Anna-Maria Nurmi; Jaana Hagström; Caj Haglund; Hanna Seppänen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Concepts and Outcomes of Perioperative Therapy in Stage IA-III Pancreatic Cancer-A Cross-Validation of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (GCRG/ADT).

Authors:  Louisa Bolm; Sergii Zemskov; Maria Zeller; Taisuke Baba; Jorge Roldan; Jon M Harrison; Natalie Petruch; Hiroki Sato; Ekaterina Petrova; Hryhoriy Lapshyn; Ruediger Braun; Kim C Honselmann; Richard Hummel; Oleksii Dronov; Alexander V Kirichenko; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Kees Kleihues-van Tol; Sylke R Zeissig; Dirk Rades; Tobias Keck; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Ulrich F Wellner; Rodney E Wegner
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Nationwide Validation of the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging System and Five Proposed Modifications for Resected Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Thijs J Schouten; Lois A Daamen; Galina Dorland; Stijn R van Roessel; Vincent P Groot; Marc G Besselink; Bert A Bonsing; Koop Bosscha; Lodewijk A A Brosens; Olivier R Busch; Ronald M van Dam; Arantza Fariña Sarasqueta; Sebastiaan Festen; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Erwin van der Harst; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Martijn Intven; Geert Kazemier; Vincent E de Meijer; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; G Mihaela Raicu; Daphne Roos; Jennifer M J Schreinemakers; Martijn W J Stommel; M F van Velthuysen; Robert C Verdonk; Joanne Verheij; Helena M Verkooijen; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; I Quintus Molenaar
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 4.339

Review 10.  Setting the Research Agenda for Clinical Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Imaging.

Authors:  Megan Schuurmans; Natália Alves; Pierpaolo Vendittelli; Henkjan Huisman; John Hermans
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 6.575

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.