Epstein-Barr Virus-Positive Mucocutaneous Ulcers Complicate Colitis Caused by Immune Checkpoint Regulator Therapy and Associate With Colon Perforation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause colitis and colon perforation. We investigated whether infection with Epstein Barr virus (EBV) associates with development and severity of colitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of fixed colon tissues from 16 patients (12 men, 4 women, median age, 69.5 y) with colitis after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9 patients treated with anti-CTLA4, 3 patients treated with anti-PD1, and 4 patients received a combination). Ten tissue samples were biopsies and 6 were collected during resection (4 surgeries for colon perforation). Patients were treated between 2010 and 2018 in the United Kingdom. The tissues were analyzed by pathology, in situ hybridization (to detect EBV-encoded small RNAs [EBERs]), and immunohistochemistry. Clinical data were also collected. RESULTS: Colon tissues from 4 of the 13 patients who received anti-CTLA4 (alone or in combination, 4 with colon perforation) had EBV-positive lymphoproliferations that manifested as florid ulcers associated with polymorphous infiltrates containing EBV-positive blasts (CD30+ or CD30-negative, CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+), plasma cells (CD138+, CD20-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), and small B cells (CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), consistent with EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcers (EBVMCUs). In analyses of biopsies collected from 2 patients with EBVMCUs over multiple time points, we found that earlier biopsies had no or only a few EBV-positive cells, whereas 1 later biopsy had EBVMCU and co-infection with cytomegalovirus. EBVMCUs were associated with steroid-refractory colitis (100% of EBV-positive patients vs 12.5% of EBV-negative patients; P = .008) and colon perforation (100% of EBV-positive patients vs no EBV-negative patients; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that colon tissues from 4/13 patients with colitis after anti-CTLA4 therapy (4/6 patients who underwent resection and 4/4 patients with colon perforation) contained EBVMCUs. EBVMCUs seem to arise secondarily in areas of inflamed colon due to immunosuppressive treatment for colitis. EBVMCUs are associated with steroid-refractory colitis and colon perforation.

Retrospective study on mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms from five European centres.

BACKGROUND: Mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (MiNEN) is a rare diagnosis, mainly encountered in the gastro-entero-pancreatic tract. There is limited knowledge of its epidemiology, prognosis and biology, and the best management for affected patients is still to be defined. AIM: To investigate clinical-pathological characteristics, treatment modalities and survival outcomes of a retrospective cohort of patients with a diagnosis of MiNEN. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of MiNEN were identified at 5 European centres. Patient data were retrospectively collected from medical records. Pathological samples were reviewed to ascertain compliance with the 2017 World Health Organisation definition of MiNEN. Tumour responses to systemic treatment were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1. Kaplan-Meier analysis was applied to estimate survival outcomes. Associations between clinical-pathological characteristics and survival outcomes were explored using Log-rank test for equality of survivors functions (univariate) and Cox-regression analysis (multivariable). RESULTS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients identified; Median age at diagnosis: 64 years. Males: 63.8%. Localised disease (curable): 53.6%. Commonest sites of origin: colon-rectum (43.5%) and oesophagus/oesophagogastric junction (15.9%). The neuroendocrine component was; predominant in 58.6%, poorly differentiated in 86.3%, and large cell in 81.25%, of cases analysed. Most distant metastases analysed (73.4%) were occupied only by a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine component. Ninety-four percent of patients with localised disease underwent curative surgery; 53% also received perioperative treatment, most often in line with protocols for adenocarcinomas from the same sites of origin. Chemotherapy was offered to most patients (68.1%) with advanced disease, and followed protocols for pure neuroendocrine carcinomas or adenocarcinomas in equal proportion. In localised cases, median recurrence free survival (RFS); 14.0 mo (95%CI: 9.2-24.4), and median overall survival (OS): 28.6 mo (95%CI: 18.3-41.1). On univariate analysis, receipt of perioperative treatment (vs surgery alone) did not improve RFS (P = 0.375), or OS (P = 0.240). In advanced cases, median progression free survival (PFS); 5.6 mo (95%CI: 4.4-7.4), and median OS; 9.0 mo (95%CI: 5.2-13.4). On univariate analysis, receipt of palliative active treatment (vs best supportive care) prolonged PFS and OS (both, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MiNEN is most commonly driven by a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine component, and has poor prognosis. Advances in its biological understanding are needed to identify effective treatments and improve patient outcomes.

Feasibility and economic assessment of chromocolonoscopy for detection of proximal serrated neoplasia within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (CONSCOP): an open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; serrated polyps are often precursors to these cancers and are considered difficult to detect. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and economic effect of chromocolonoscopy on detection of proximal serrated neoplasia. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screening Wales centres. Participants who tested positive for faecal occult blood and who were eligible for and considered fit to have colonoscopy (patients with known cases of polyposis syndromes, Lynch syndrome, and chronic inflammatory disease were excluded) were randomly assigned (1:1; with the use of minimisation, stratified by centre with an 80:20 random element) to either standard white light colonoscopy (standard group) or chromocolonoscopy (indigo carmine dye [0·2%]; chromocolonoscopy group) using a secure, internet-based, computerised, randomisation system that used centralised, dynamic allocation. Participants were followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were analysed. All proximal polyps were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel. The main outcome on which power was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the scope was inserted to withdrawal from the anus, assessed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 15 min. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972451. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 741 (72%) of 1031 patients screened were eligible and consented: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy. In the chromocolonoscopy group, the procedure took a mean of 36·8 min (SD 15·0), compared with a mean of 30·6 min (13·7) in the standard group (mean difference 6·3 min [95% CI 4·2-8·4] longer with chromocolonoscopy than in the standard group). The mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Detection rates for proximal serrated lesions were significantly higher in the chromocolonoscopy group than in the control group (45 [12%] of 381 patients vs 23 [6%] of 360 patients; odds ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·16-3·32]; p=0·012). Serious adverse events (four cases of postpolypectomy bleeding [two in each group], and one case of anxiety and hyperventilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Chromocolonoscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significantly increased detection of proximal serrated neoplasia and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy. Larger randomised trials of chromocolonoscopy, powered for improved detection of significant serrated polyps and for longer-term follow-up to investigate the effect on reduction of interval cancers within screening populations, are warranted. FUNDING: Health and Care Research Wales (RfPPB-1021).

Impact of pigment epithelium-derived factor on colorectal cancer in vitro and in vivo.

Pigment epithelial derived factor (PEDF) is a secreted glycoprotein that is a non-inhibitory member of the serine protease inhibitor (serpin) family. PEDF exhibits multiple biological properties including neuroprotective, anti-angiogenic, and immune-modulating. Interestingly, PEDF exerts the inhibitory effects in cancers derived from certain tissues, including prostatic, ovarian, and pancreatic carcinomas. The current study aimed to elucidate its role in colorectal cancer development. PEDF expression in human colorectal cancer tissue was assessed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and immunohistochemical staining (IHC). The effect of treatment with recombinant PEDF on cellular function was examined using in vitro functional assays. PEDF expression was downregulated in colorectal cancer cell tissue. Treatment with recombinant PEDF resulted in significant decreases in the rate of colorectal cancer cell migration and invasion and an increase in cellular adhesion in colorectal cancer cell lines examined. These results indicate that upregulation of PEDF expression may serve as a new strategy for further investigation of therapeutic relevance to the prevention of the metastatic spread of colorectal cancer.

The impact of chromoendoscopy for surveillance of the duodenum in patients with MUTYH-associated polyposis and familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenal polyposis and cancer have become a key issue for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP). Almost all patients with FAP will develop duodenal adenomas, and 5% will develop cancer. The incidence of duodenal adenomas in MAP appears to be lower than in FAP, but the limited available data suggest a comparable increase in the relative risk and lifetime risk of duodenal cancer. Current surveillance recommendations, however, are the same for FAP and MAP, using the Spigelman score (incorporating polyp number, size, dysplasia, and histology) for risk stratification and determination of surveillance intervals. Previous studies have demonstrated a benefit of enhanced detection rates of adenomas by use of chromoendoscopy both in sporadic colorectal disease and in groups at high risk of colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the effect of chromoendoscopy on duodenal adenoma detection, to determine the impact on Spigelman stage and to compare this in individuals with known pathogenic mutations in order to determine the difference in duodenal involvement between MAP and FAP. METHODS: A prospective study examined the impact of chromoendoscopy on the assessment of the duodenum in 51 consecutive patients with MAP and FAP in 2 academic centers in the United Kingdom (University Hospital Llandough, Cardiff, and St Mark's Hospital, London) from 2011 to 2014. RESULTS: Enhanced adenoma detection of 3 times the number of adenomas after chromoendoscopy was demonstrated in both MAP (P = .013) and FAP (P = .002), but did not affect adenoma size. In both conditions, there was a significant increase in Spigelman stage after chromoendoscopy compared with endoscopy without dye spray. Spigelman scores and overall adenoma detection was significantly lower in MAP compared with FAP. CONCLUSIONS: Chromoendoscopy improved the diagnostic yield of anomas in MAP and FAP 3-fold, and in both MAP and FAP this resulted in a clinically significant upstaging in Spigelman score. Further studies are required to determine the impact of improved adenoma detection on the management and outcome of duodenal polyposis.

Burden and Profile of Somatic Mutation in Duodenal Adenomas from Patients with Familial Adenomatous- and MUTYH-associated Polyposis.

Purpose: Duodenal polyposis and cancer are important causes of morbidity and mortality in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP). This study aimed to comprehensively characterize somatic genetic changes in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas to better understand duodenal tumorigenesis in these disorders.Experimental Design: Sixty-nine adenomas were biopsied during endoscopy in 16 FAP and 10 MAP patients with duodenal polyposis. Ten FAP and 10 MAP adenomas and matched blood DNA samples were exome sequenced, 42 further adenomas underwent targeted sequencing, and 47 were studied by array comparative genomic hybridization. Findings in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas were compared with each other and to the reported mutational landscape in FAP and MAP colorectal adenomas.Results: MAP duodenal adenomas had significantly more protein-changing somatic mutations (P = 0.018), truncating mutations (P = 0.006), and copy number variants (P = 0.005) than FAP duodenal adenomas, even though MAP patients had lower Spigelman stage duodenal polyposis. Fifteen genes were significantly recurrently mutated. Targeted sequencing of APC, KRAS, PTCHD2, and PLCL1 identified further mutations in each of these genes in additional duodenal adenomas. In contrast to MAP and FAP colorectal adenomas, neither exome nor targeted sequencing identified WTX mutations (P = 0.0017).Conclusions: The mutational landscapes in FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas overlapped with, but had significant differences to those reported in colorectal adenomas. The significantly higher burden of somatic mutations in MAP than FAP duodenal adenomas despite lower Spigelman stage disease could increase cancer risk in the context of apparently less severe benign disease. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6721-32. ©2017 AACR.

Interobserver agreement in the reporting of colorectal polyp pathology among bowel cancer screening pathologists in Wales.

AIMS: To assess the interobserver agreement in the reporting of colorectal polyps among histopathologists participating in the Welsh Bowel Cancer Screening (BCS) programme. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve benign polyps representative of BCS cases were identified from pathology files and reported by 28 BCS histopathologists using proforma sheets. The level of agreement between the participants and a gold standard was determined using kappa (κ) statistics. A moderate level of agreement was achieved in the reporting of polyp type [κ = 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.59] and adenomatous lesions were distinguished from non-adenomatous lesions in 96% of cases. Substantial agreement was obtained in distinguishing low- and high-grade dysplasias (κ = 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.86), but there was only fair agreement in reporting excision margin status (κ = 0.24; 95% CI 0.07-0.43) with frequent use of the 'uncertain' category. Significant issues included categorizing serrated lesions, recognizing focal high-grade dysplasia and epithelial misplacement, and apparent overdiagnosis of villous change in adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability in some aspects of reporting colorectal polyps by BCS pathologists is suboptimal, with a potential impact upon patient management and the efficient running of the screening service. Approaches to addressing this are discussed.

A prospective study of the accuracy and concordance between in-situ and postfixation measurements of colorectal polyp size and their potential impact upon surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the differences between in-situ, prefixation and postfixation colorectal polyp measurements, their clinical impact upon determining adenoma surveillance intervals, and to compare postfixation measurements using three different devices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 107 colorectal polyps resected from 65 consecutive patients (45 men, 20 women) undergoing colonoscopy as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme was undertaken. The polyps were measured in situ, prefixation (study gold standard) and using three measurement devices (ruler, callipers and magnifying lens) postfixation in formalin. RESULTS: Prefixation ruler measurements were significantly higher than in-situ (P=0.02) and postfixation ruler measurements (P=0.04). No significant difference was observed between in-situ and postfixation ruler measurements (P=0.36), although in-situ measurements were more variable. In-situ measurements also generated more variation in surveillance intervals than postfixation measurements (9.3 vs. 5.6%). No significant difference was seen between measurements obtained by the three different devices postfixation (P=0.89). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence supporting the use of postfixation polyp size measurements as advised by recent European pathology colorectal cancer screening recommendations. In the absence of a clinically significant difference between measurement devices, we advise the ruler to be used as a standard for postfixation measurements because of its widespread availability.

Polyclonal anti-PSA is more sensitive but less specific than monoclonal anti-PSA: Implications for diagnostic prostatic pathology.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) production by nonprostatic tissues has been reported, casting doubts on its specificity. The immunohistochemical relative specificity and sensitivity of PSA expression using monoclonal and polyclonal anti-PSA was analyzed on 60 prostate carcinomas, 40 normal seminal vesicles, and 310 nonprostatic tumors. All nonprostatic tumors proved negative with both antibodies. However, 13 (32%) seminal vesicles showed immunoreactivity with polyclonal anti-PSA, but none showed immunoreactivity with the monoclonal antibody. The sensitivity of the 2 antibodies for prostate cancer varied with tumor grade. In Gleason pattern 3, both antibodies showed diffuse immunostaining in all cases. In Gleason pattern 5, polyclonal anti-PSA showed diffuse (>95%) tumor cell positivity in 18 cases (90%), while with the monoclonal antibody, 7 cases (35%) showed only focal (<10%) tumor cell immunoreactivity. Thus, monoclonal anti-PSA seems to be useful in small gland proliferations in which the differential diagnosis includes seminal vesicle, while for poorly differentiated neoplasms, polyclonal anti-PSA is considered superior. Sections of high-grade prostate cancer should be included as positive controls for PSA immunostaining.