Amsterdam International Consensus Meeting: tumor response scoring in the pathology assessment of resected pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

• Published in: Modern pathology Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 4 - 12
• Main Authors: Janssen, Boris V., Tutucu, Faik, van Roessel, Stijn, Adsay, Volkan, Basturk, Olca, Campbell, Fiona, Doglioni, Claudio, Esposito, Irene, Feakins, Roger, Fukushima, Noriyoshi, Gill, Anthony J., Hruban, Ralph H., Kaplan, Jeffrey, Koerkamp, Bas Groot, Hong, Seung-Mo, Krasinskas, Alyssa, Luchini, Claudio, Offerhaus, Johan, Sarasqueta, Arantza Fariña, Shi, Chanjuan, Singhi, Aatur, Stoop, Thomas F., Soer, Eline C., Thompson, Elizabeth, van Tienhoven, Geertjan, Velthuysen, Marie-Louise F., Wilmink, Johanna W., Besselink, Marc G., Brosens, Lodewijk A.A., Wang, Huamin, Verbeke, Caroline S., Verheij, Joanne
• Format: Journal Article Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Published: New York Elsevier Inc 01.01.2021; Nature Publishing Group US; Elsevier Limited; Williams & Wilkins Co
• Subjects: 631/67/1504/1713; 692/699/1503/1712/1713; Adenocarcinoma; Antineoplastic Agents; Cancer; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - therapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Laboratory Medicine; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Netherlands; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic cancer; Pancreatic Neoplasms - therapy; Pathology; Sampling; Treatment Outcome; Netherlands
• ISSN: 0893-3952; 1530-0285
• DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-00683-9

Histopathologically scoring the response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to neoadjuvant treatment can guide the selection of adjuvant therapy and improve prognostic stratification. However, several tumor response scoring (TRS) systems exist, and consensus is lacking as to which system represents best practice. An international consensus meeting on TRS took place in November 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Here, we provide an overview of the outcomes and consensus statements that originated from this meeting. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached on a total of seven statements: (1) TRS is important because it provides information about the effect of neoadjuvant treatment that is not provided by other histopathology-based descriptors. (2) TRS for resected PDAC following neoadjuvant therapy should assess residual (viable) tumor burden instead of tumor regression. (3) The CAP scoring system is considered the most adequate scoring system to date because it is based on the presence and amount of residual cancer cells instead of tumor regression. (4) The defining criteria of the categories in the CAP scoring system should be improved by replacing subjective terms including “minimal” or “extensive” with objective criteria to evaluate the extent of viable tumor. (5) The improved, consensus-based system should be validated retrospectively and prospectively. (6) Prospective studies should determine the extent of tissue sampling that is required to ensure adequate assessment of the residual cancer burden, taking into account the heterogeneity of tumor response. (7) In future scientific publications, the extent of tissue sampling should be described in detail in the “Materials and methods” section.