Keywords
Intratumor heterogeneity, tumor sampling, multi-site tumor sampling grade, pathology, clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Intratumor heterogeneity, tumor sampling, multi-site tumor sampling grade, pathology, clear cell renal cell carcinoma
The authors thank all the comments and suggestions of the referees. A mention of what is really the divide and conquer strategy has been included in the Introduction. The Material and Methods section also includes additional information related to the amount of tissue evaluated in both protocols and the way we did it. Finally, a new paragraph (with an additional reference) has been included in the Discussion stressing the potential importance of this approach in detecting molecular intratumoural heterogeneity.
To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is the most frequent form of renal cancer in Western Countries1 and a paradigmatic example of intratumoural heterogeneity (ITH)2–5. ITH is a major factor in the unpredictable clinical behavior and treatment failure response that these tumors can display5 and as a consequence, detection of ITH by pathologists is becoming an increasingly important metric of clinical practice.
We have recently demonstrated that a multi-site tumor sampling (MSTS) protocol following the divide-and-conquer (DAC) algorithm outperforms routine sampling protocols (RS) in detecting ITH when tested in silico6. DAC is a well-known strategy in computer science to solve many different practical problems and consists in recursively breaking down a given problem into simpler parts (divide) until they are simple enough to be efficiently solved (conquer). Then, partial solutions are combined to solve the original problem. Since such a strategy does not necessarily increase the cost of procedures and can be performed without significant changes in the pathologist’s routine, we proposed its generalized implementation in pathology labs6,7. This study extends this hypothesis to a real life scenario by comparing the MSTS protocol with RS when detecting classic morphological ITH in a series of 38 CCRCC.
Thirty-eight CCRCC were prospectively collected from the Pathology Department of the Cruces University Hospital (Barakaldo, Spain). All patients were informed about the potential use for research of their surgically resected tissues, and accepted this eventuality by signing an information consent approved by the local Ethics Committee (CEIC). The two sampling protocols MSTS and RS were applied in each case. The RS8 method consisted of selecting one tissue fragment per centimeter of tumor diameter plus an additional fragment of each suspicious area by the naked eye. Alternatively, the MSTS6,7 method consisted of selecting a large number of small fragments including six to eight of them in the same cassette and fixing the number of cassettes to one per centimeter of tumor (Figure 1). Thus, the two sampling protocols made use of the same number of cassettes and, consequently, the total surface of tumor tissue selected for analysis is equivalent (restricted by the cassette dimensions). Tissue samples were fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin following routine methods. Four-micron-thick histological slides were processed in an automatized stainer (Symphony system, Ventana Medical Systems Inc., Tucson, USA).
The study was performed on hematoxylin-eosin (HE) stained histological slides exclusively. Two experienced pathologists (RG, JIL) reviewed all HE sections in a blind fashion. Fuhrman grade, cell type (clear vs. granular eosinophilic), and the presence of necrosis and/or sarcomatoid change were evaluated in all cases and in both sampling methods. Grade was grouped as low (G1/2) and high (G3/4) for higher consistency. The four histological parameters were considered if they were present in the sample, no matter they were focally or extensively found in RS or affecting one or more fragments in MSTS, since the final goal was “its detection”.
Results of the two methods (RS and MSTS) were compared by applying a chi-squared test (χ2), a test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate the hypothesis of independence between the two groups. In particular, we made use of the script chi2test.m (available to download at http://es.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/16177-chi2test) and run it in Matlab (The Mathworks, Inc, version 2012a). For instance, to test if MSTS detected more high-grade tumors (G3/4) than RS (results in columns H and D respectively from the Excel file containing the raw data), we first counted the total number of high labels in RS (column D) and in MSTS (column H), giving a total number of 21 cases for RS and 31 cases for MSTS. Next, considering a total number of 38 CCRCC cases, we run in Matlab p=chi2test ([31 38-31; 21 38-21]), which returns a p-value of p=0.0136. Similarly, we compare the performances of the two methods with regard to the categories of presence of granular eosinophilic cells, sarcomatoid phenotype and tumor necrosis.
The series consisted of 32 males and 6 females with an average age of 63 years (range 41–87), and average tumor diameter of 8.5 cm (range 4–15). Overall, MSTS was more informative than RS in 28 of 38 cases (73.5%). In particular, MSTS detected a significantly higher number of high-grade tumors (G3/4) than RS (31 vs. 21 cases respectively, χ2 test, p=0.0136) and a significantly higher number of tumors containing granular eosinophilic cells (32 vs. 22 cases respectively, χ2 test, p=0.0114) (Table 1).
Although MSTS also detected a higher number of tumors displaying sarcomatoid phenotype (12 vs. 6 cases, respectively) and a higher number of cases presenting tumor necrosis (10 vs. 7 cases, respectively), their figures did not reach significant levels (Table 1) probably because both were detected by the naked eye and were sampled in both protocols.
Histological parameters | MSTS | RS | p value (χ2 test) |
---|---|---|---|
High grade (G3/4) | 31 | 21 | 0.0136 |
Granular eosinophilic cells | 32 | 22 | 0.0114 |
Sarcomatoid phenotype | 12 | 6 | 0.1 |
Tumor necrosis | 10 | 7 | 0.5 |
Moreover, MSTS detected a clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (CK7+/CD10-) component in one case that RS missed.
The clinical importance of detecting ITH is becoming clearer as time passes and as a consequence represents one of the most challenging tasks facing pathologists today5. However, pathologists have not yet adapted the old sampling protocols and seem not aware of a concerning paradox: The success of sophisticated devices and expensive platforms in detecting key tumor mutations depends on the selection rightness of tumor pieces which are (very often) made by residents. The combination of lack of solid evidence for the necessity to change current practice and a reluctance to incur new costs and increased work load may be responsible of this attitude.
We present evidence that the MSTS protocol is much more effective than RS in detecting high grade areas and other histological parameters that determine tumor aggressiveness and prognosis in CCRCC. Importantly the MSTS protocol does not incur extra costs to pathology labs6,7. A similar approach (but for a different purpose) was already reported in 1990 by Battifora and Mehta to optimize the screening of new histologic reagents9.
A thorough histological analysis such as MSTS performs may also help the pathologists in detecting hidden or unexpected tumor histologies, i.e., hybrid tumors, collision neoplasms, histologically complex tumors, and minor but crucial components in a huge tumor, giving definite clues for a complete diagnosis.
However, the final objective of MSTS is to ensure the detection of the complete spectrum of molecular changes across each tumor as this achievement will open new possibilities for more efficient treatments, thus accomplishing oncologists expectancies10. Exhaustive molecular analyses of renal carcinomas are being performed nowadays4,5, but these approaches are difficult to be implemented in the routine practice for most of the hospitals due to their high costs. In this sense, MSTS could be regarded as an affordable alternative for a generalized application since it takes into account as a necessary premise the sustainability of health systems.
F1000Research: Dataset 1. Clinic-pathological data corresponding to the two RS and MSTS sampling methods in 38 CCRCC, 10.5256/f1000research.9419.d13584711
JIL exposed the problem; JIL, JMC and CHL designed the study; RG selected the cases and built the picture, RG and JIL reviewed the cases; RG, JMC, CHL and JIL wrote the final version of the manuscript and agreed with this submission.
CHL and JMC acknowledge financial support from Ikerbasque: The Basque Foundation for Science. This work was partially funded by grant SAF2013-48812-R from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Version 2 (revision) 16 Sep 16 |
|||||
Version 1 17 Aug 16 |
read | read | read | read | read |
Click here to access the data.
Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly.
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)