[Histopathological diagnostic work-up of joint endoprosthesis-associated pathologies]

Increasing classes of joint implants and the combination of materials results in increased and wear-associated pathologies. According to the revised consensus classification, the following types can be recognized at conventional histological examination: Type I, particle-induced type; Type II, infection type; Type III, combination type; Type IV, indifferent type; Type V arthrofibrotic type; Type VI, allergic/immunological/toxic adverse reactions and Type VII, bone pathologies. Wear particles are histopathologically characterized according to the Krenn particle algorithm which focuses on a descriptive identification of wear particles and the differentiation of other nonwear-related particles. Type VII is considered histologically when there is evidence of a perivascular/interstitial lymphocytic CD20- and CD3-positive infiltrate, presence of mast cells and eosinophils, and tissue necrosis/infarction associated with implant wear material. Since wear particle-induced toxicity cannot be differentiated with certainty from hypersensitivity/allergic reaction on histological examination, immunological-allergological and clinical data should be used as supplementary criteria for the differential diagnosis. Tissue sampling should be performed from periprosthetic soft tissue with location mapping and when feasible also from bone tissue. Additional information regarding the type of implant and clinical, radiological, immunological, and microbiology data should be available to the pathologist. Further immunohistochemical studies are recommended in the following settings: infection (CD15, CD20, CD68); prosthesis-associated arthrofibrosis (β‑catenin); allergic/immunologic/toxic adverse reactions (CD20, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD117 and for T‑cell characterization T‑bet, GATA-3, and FOXP3).

The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014

BACKGROUND

The morphological evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer (BC) is gaining momentum as evidence strengthens for the clinical relevance of this immunological biomarker. Accumulating evidence suggests that the extent of lymphocytic infiltration in tumor tissue can be assessed as a major parameter by evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tumor sections. TILs have been shown to provide prognostic and potentially predictive value, particularly in triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing BC.

DESIGN

A standardized methodology for evaluating TILs is now needed as a prerequisite for integrating this parameter in standard histopathological practice, in a research setting as well as in clinical trials. This article reviews current data on the clinical validity and utility of TILs in BC in an effort to foster better knowledge and insight in this rapidly evolving field, and to develop a standardized methodology for visual assessment on H&E sections, acknowledging the future potential of molecular/multiplexed approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology provided is sufficiently detailed to offer a uniformly applied, pragmatic starting point and improve consistency and reproducibility in the measurement of TILs for future studies.

The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014

BACKGROUND

The morphological evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer (BC) is gaining momentum as evidence strengthens for the clinical relevance of this immunological biomarker. Accumulating evidence suggests that the extent of lymphocytic infiltration in tumor tissue can be assessed as a major parameter by evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tumor sections. TILs have been shown to provide prognostic and potentially predictive value, particularly in triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing BC.

DESIGN

A standardized methodology for evaluating TILs is now needed as a prerequisite for integrating this parameter in standard histopathological practice, in a research setting as well as in clinical trials. This article reviews current data on the clinical validity and utility of TILs in BC in an effort to foster better knowledge and insight in this rapidly evolving field, and to develop a standardized methodology for visual assessment on H&E sections, acknowledging the future potential of molecular/multiplexed approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology provided is sufficiently detailed to offer a uniformly applied, pragmatic starting point and improve consistency and reproducibility in the measurement of TILs for future studies.

Abstract PD06-01: Automated computational Ki67 scoring in the GeparTrio breast cancer study cohort

Background: Scoring proliferation through Ki67-immunohistochemistry is an important component in predicting therapy response to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Therefore, an accurate and standardized Ki67-scoring is pivotal both in routine diagnostics and larger multi-center studies aiming at improving present or establishing new cut-off values for existing or novel therapy regimens. However, recent studies have cast some doubt on the reliability of “visual” Ki67 scoring by pathologists, especially within the lower - yet clinically important - proliferation range. Here, we present and apply a novel automated image analysis approach for Ki67-quantification in breast cancer tissue.

Methods: We perform automated Ki67-scoring in 1219 breast cancer patients from the GeparTrio study cohort using a novel image analysis approach that avoids detection biases due to morphological variability by using a generic minimum-model approach. The method is capable of tumor-stroma-separation and may be used to process large data sets fully unsupervised in batch mode while allowing for efficient visual checks of the results. We compare these results with a different in-house-developed subtiling-based automated quantification method and moreover, gauge our approach with manual scoring performed by pathologists.

Results: The results show deviations of 10% (automated method 1 vs. manual), 9% (automated method 2 vs. manual) and 3% (automated method 1 vs. automated method 2) on average. The Ki67 scores show Pearson correlations between automated and manual scoring of r>0.8 (p < 0.001) for both automated methods and r>0.95 (p < 0.001) between the two tested automated methods.

Conclusion: Because of the methodological differences of the presented techniques our results suggest a high robustness of the automated methods that at the same time show a good agreement with manual Ki67 scoring. Our approach therefore offers an automated and standardized means of Ki67 quantification applicable in routine diagnostics as well as larger clinical study settings, such as in the GeparTrio cohort shown here.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD06-01.