Evaluation of information presented within mast cell tumour histopathology reports in the United States: 2012-2015

Reproducibility and Feasibility of Classification and National Guidelines for Histological Diagnosis of Canine Mammary Gland Tumours: A Multi-Institutional Ring Study

Histological diagnosis of Canine Mammary Tumours (CMTs) provides the basis for proper treatment and follow-up. Nowadays, its accuracy is poorly understood and variable interpretation of histological criteria leads to a lack of standardisation and impossibility to compare studies. This study aimed to quantify the reproducibility of histological diagnosis and grading in CMTs. A blinded ring test on 36 CMTs was performed by 15 veterinary pathologists with different levels of education, after discussion of critical points on the Davis-Thompson Foundation Classification and providing consensus guidelines. Kappa statistics were used to compare the interobserver variability. The overall concordance rate of diagnostic interpretations of WP on identification of hyperplasia-dysplasia/benign/malignant lesions showed a substantial agreement (average k ranging from 0.66 to 0.82, with a k-combined of 0.76). Instead, outcomes on ICD-O-3.2 morphological code /diagnosis of histotype had only a moderate agreement (average k ranging from 0.44 and 0.64, with a k-combined of 0.54). The results demonstrated that standardised classification and consensus guidelines can produce moderate to substantial agreement; however, further efforts are needed to increase this agreement in distinguishing benign versus malignant lesions and in histological grading.

International Guidelines for Veterinary Tumor Pathology: A Call to Action

Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as "living documents" on a website (www.vetcancerprotocols.org), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care.