Tumor architecture exerts no bias on nuclear grading in breast cancer diagnosis

We recently reported that nuclear grading in prostate cancer is subject to a strong confirmation bias induced by the tumor architecture. We now wondered whether a similar bias governs nuclear grading in breast carcinoma. An unannounced test was performed at a pathology conference. Pathologists were asked to grade nuclei in a PowerPoint presentation. Circular high power fields of 27 invasive ductal carcinomas were shown, superimposed over low power background images of either tubule-rich or tubule-poor carcinomas. We found (a) that diagnostic reproducibility of nuclear grades was poor to moderate (weighed kappa values between 0.07 and 0.54, 27 cases, 44 graders), but (b) that nuclear grades were not affected by the tumor architecture. We speculate that the categorized grading in breast cancer, separating tubule formation, nuclear pleomorphism, and mitotic figure counts in a combined three tier score, prevents the bias that architecture exerts on nuclear grades in less well-controlled situations.

What was I thinking? Eye-tracking experiments underscore the bias that architecture exerts on nuclear grading in prostate cancer

We previously reported that nuclear grade assignment of prostate carcinomas is subject to a cognitive bias induced by the tumor architecture. Here, we asked whether this bias is mediated by the non-conscious selection of nuclei that "match the expectation" induced by the inadvertent glance at the tumor architecture. 20 pathologists were asked to grade nuclei in high power fields of 20 prostate carcinomas displayed on a computer screen. Unknown to the pathologists, each carcinoma was shown twice, once before a background of a low grade, tubule-rich carcinoma and once before the background of a high grade, solid carcinoma. Eye tracking allowed to identify which nuclei the pathologists fixated during the 8 second projection period. For all 20 pathologists, nuclear grade assignment was significantly biased by tumor architecture. Pathologists tended to fixate on bigger, darker, and more irregular nuclei when those were projected before kigh grade, solid carcinomas than before low grade, tubule-rich carcinomas (and vice versa). However, the morphometric differences of the selected nuclei accounted for only 11% of the architecture-induced bias, suggesting that it can only to a small part be explained by the unconscious fixation on nuclei that "match the expectation". In conclusion, selection of « matching nuclei » represents an unconscious effort to vindicate the gravitation of nuclear grades towards the tumor architecture.

Tumour budding: a promising parameter in colorectal cancer

In 2011, the Tumour Node Metastasis (TNM) staging system still remains the gold standard for stratifying colorectal cancer (CRC) patients into prognostic subgroups, and is considered a solid basis for treatment management. Nevertheless, there is still a challenge with regard to therapeutic strategy; stage II patients are not typically selected for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, although some stage II patients have a comparable outcome to stage III patients who, themselves do receive such treatment. Consequently, there has been an inundation of 'prognostic biomarker' studies aiming to improve the prognostic stratification power of the TNM staging system. Most proposed biomarkers are not implemented because of lack of reproducibility, validation and standardisation. This problem can be partially resolved by following the REMARK guidelines. In search of novel prognostic factors for patients with CRC, one might glance at a table in the book entitled 'Prognostic Factors in Cancer' published by the International Union against Cancer (UICC) in 2006, in which TNM stage, L and V classifications are considered 'essential' prognostic factors, whereas tumour grade, perineural invasion, tumour budding and tumour-border configuration among others are proposed as 'additional' prognostic factors. Histopathology reports normally include the 'essential' features and are accompanied by tumour grade, histological subtype and information on perineural invasion, but interestingly, the tumour-border configuration (i.e., growth pattern) and especially tumour budding are rarely reported. Although scoring systems such as the 'BRE' in breast and 'Gleason' in prostate cancer are solidly based on histomorphological features and used in daily practice, no such additional scoring system to complement TNM staging is available for CRC. Regardless of differences in study design and methods for tumour-budding assessment, the prognostic power of tumour budding has been confirmed by dozens of study groups worldwide, suggesting that tumour budding may be a valuable candidate for inclusion into a future prognostic scoring system for CRC. This mini-review therefore attempts to present a short and concise overview on tumour budding, including morphological, molecular and prognostic aspects underlining its inter-disciplinary relevance.