Faculty Bibliography

Screening for therapeutic targets is standard of care in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. However, most molecular assays utilize tumor tissue, which may not always be available. "Liquid biopsies" are plasma-based next generation sequencing (NGS) assays that use circulating tumor DNA to identify relevant targets. To compare the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of a plasma-based NGS assay to solid-tumor-based NGS we retrospectively analyzed sequencing results of 100 sequential patients with lung adenocarcinoma at our institution who had received concurrent testing with both a solid-tissue-based NGS assay and a commercially available plasma-based NGS assay. Patients represented both new diagnoses (79%) and disease progression on treatment (21%); the majority (83%) had stage IV disease. Tissue-NGS identified 74 clinically relevant mutations, including 52 therapeutic targets, a sensitivity of 94.8%, while plasma-NGS identified 41 clinically relevant mutations, a sensitivity of 52.6% (p < 0.001). Tissue-NGS showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy across multiple patient subgroups, both in newly diagnosed and treated patients, as well as in metastatic and nonmetastatic disease. Discrepant cases involved hotspot mutations and actionable fusions including those in EGFR, ALK, and NTRK1. In summary, tissue-NGS detects significantly more clinically relevant alterations and therapeutic targets compared to plasma-NGS, suggesting that tissue-NGS should be the preferred method for molecular testing of lung adenocarcinoma when tissue is available. Plasma-NGS can still play an important role when tissue testing is not possible. However, given its low sensitivity, a negative result should be confirmed with a tissue-based assay.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is known to cause severe respiratory infections with occasional accompanying pleural (PE), pericardial (PCE) or peritoneal effusion (PTE). The effect of COVID-19 disease on effusion cytology is not yet known. Therefore, our study aims to examine the cytomorphologic features and work-up of effusion fluid in patients in recovery from COVID-19 infection versus those with active disease.
Material(s) and Method(s): PE (n=15), PCE (n=1), PTE (n=19) samples from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection (6/1/2020-12/30/2020) were reviewed. EFs with metastatic carcinoma were excluded. Differential cell count (DCC), cytomorphology, and immunostains of EFs were retrospectively evaluated by a board-certified cytopathologist and compared between patients with active infection (AI, n=22, positive COVID-19 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) within 2 months) and recovery phase from COVID-19 (RC, n=13, negative COVID-19 NAAT for >2 months).
Result(s): Cytology diagnoses were: negative for malignancy (n=30), atypical (n=4), suspicious for malignancy (n=1). AI cases showed more atypical mesothelial cells than RC cases (Table 1, p<0.05), some with enlarged nuclei with prominent nucleoli and occasional multi-nucleation (Figure 1), and some with bizarre nuclei (Table 1, p<0.01). Immunostains were performed more often in AI than RC cases (50.0% vs 7.7%, p<0.05). DCC (available in 28 cases) showed no significant difference amongst AI and RC cases (Figure 1, p>0.05).
Conclusion(s): Our study found atypical and bizarre mesothelial cells to be present more often in effusions of cases with active COVID-19 infection than in samples from patients in recovery, though DCCs did not show significant difference. Diagnosis of malignancy may be considered in cases with such nuclear atypia, which explains increased immunostain work-up in AI cases. It is important for cytopathologists to consider the patients' COVID-19 infection status when evaluating effusion cytology cases. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
Copyright

BACKGROUND:The diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis can be inconclusive in many cases. Despite the several serological tests developed, the literature on biomarkers that can assist in the diagnosis of congenital an acute toxoplasmosis is limited. The objective of this study was to analyze the immunoreactive profile of Toxoplasma gondii protein bands with the potential to be biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of congenital and acute toxoplasmosis. METHODS:Peripheral blood samples from women of childbearing age and/or pregnant women diagnosed with acquired toxoplasmosis as well as from congenitally infected children were selected and submitted to immunoblotting for analysis of the immunoreactive bands profile by immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. RESULTS:When comparing the immunoreactive bands profile for antibodies present in samples from different groups and subgroups, the 150, 18.5, and 16.96-kDa bands were more immunoreactive with the antibodies present in serum samples from the acquired infection group. The 343, 189, 150, 75, and 42-kDa bands showed more chance to be detected by the symptomatic congenital infection subgroup samples, while the 61, 50, and 16.96-kDa bands were significantly immunoreactive with the acute infection subgroup samples. CONCLUSIONS:The identification of these potential biomarkers can assist in early diagnosis and treatment of congenital toxoplasmosis.

BACKGROUND:Current interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnostic guidelines assess criteria across clinical, radiologic and pathologic domains. Significant interobserver variation in histopathologic evaluation has previously been shown but the specific source of these discrepancies is poorly documented. We sought to document specific areas of difficulty and develop improved criteria that would reduce overall interobserver variation. METHODS:Using an internet-based approach, we reviewed selected images of specific diagnostic features of ILD histopathology and whole slide images of fibrotic ILD. After an initial round of review, we confirmed the presence of interobserver variation among our group. We then developed refined criteria and reviewed a second set of cases. RESULTS:The initial round reproduced the existing literature on interobserver variation in diagnosis of ILD. Cases which were pre-selected as inconsistent with usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (UIP/IPF) were confirmed as such by multi-observer review. Cases which were thought to be in the spectrum of chronic fibrotic ILD for which UIP/IPF were in the differential showed marked variation in nearly all aspects of ILD evaluation including extent of inflammation and extent and pattern of fibrosis. A proposed set of more explicit criteria had only modest effects on this outcome. While we were only modestly successful in reducing interobserver variation, we did identify specific reasons that current histopathologic criteria of fibrotic ILD are not well defined in practice. CONCLUSIONS:Any additional classification scheme must address interobserver variation in histopathologic diagnosis of fibrotic ILD order to remain clinically relevant. Improvements to tissue-based diagnostics may require substantial resources such as larger datasets or novel technologies to improve reproducibility. Benchmarks should be established for expected outcomes among clinically defined subgroups as a quality metric.

Diffuse malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an incurable tumour of the serosal membranes, which is often caused by exposure to asbestos and commonly diagnosed at advanced stage. Malignant mesothelioma in situ (MMIS) is now included as diagnostic category by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, our international survey of 34 pulmonary pathologists with an interest in MM diagnosis highlights inconsistency regarding how the diagnosis is being made by experts, despite published guidelines. Whilst the WHO restricts the diagnosis to surgical samples, the very concept has implication for cytological diagnosis, which is already regarded as controversial in itself by some. MMIS is currently only applicable as precursor to MM with an epithelioid component, and raises the possibility for different molecular pathways for different histological MM subtypes. The clinical implications of MMIS at this stage are uncertain, but aggressive therapies are being initiated in some instances. Based on the results of the survey we here present a critical appraisal of the concept, its clinical and conceptual implications and provide practice suggestions for diagnosis. A low threshold for ancillary testing is suggested. The designations of 'malignant mesothelioma, cannot exclude MMIS' or 'atypical mesothelial proliferation with molecular indicators of malignancy, so-called MMIS' could be used on cytology samples, adding 'no evidence of invasion in sample provided' for surgical samples. Clinical and radiological correlation are integral to diagnosis and best done at multidisciplinary meetings. Finally, collaborative studies are required to improve our understanding of MMIS.