Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 gene expression positivity determined by silver in situ hybridization/immunohistochemistry methods and associated factors in a cohort of Sri Lankan patients with gastric adenocarcinoma: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Positive human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression and its predictive clinicopathological features remain unclear in Sri Lankan gastric cancer (GC) patients. Here, we aimed to determine GC HER2 status predictors by analyzing associations between clinicopathological features and HER2 expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and silver in situ hybridization (SISH). METHODS: During this 4-year prospective study, clinicopathological data were collected from participants in the National Hospital of Sri Lanka. HER2 IHC and SISH were performed using commercial reagents. Using chi-square tests, associations of HER2-IHC/SISH with clinicopathological features were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 145 GC patients were included, 69 had gastrectomies and 76 had biopsies. Positive HER2 expression by IHC was associated with age <60 years, high T stage (assessed pathologically in resections and radiologically in biopsies), high nuclear grade, tumor necrosis, mitosis >5/high-power field, with additional perineural invasion and lymphovascular invasion in resections. These features, excluding lymphovascular invasion but including male sex, were associated with HER2 expression by SISH. CONCLUSIONS: Age <60 years, high nuclear grade, tumor necrosis, and perineural invasion are associated factors of HER2 status. These could be used to triage GC patients for HER2 status testing in limited resource settings where IHC/SISH analysis is costly.

Misleading terminology in pathology: lack of definitions hampers communication.

Accurate terminology is the basis for clear communication among specialists and relies upon precise definitions, indispensable for the WHO Classification of Tumours. We identified a number of potentially misleading terms in use in the recently published WHO Classification of Tumours, 5th edition. From a list of common sources that might be consulted by specialists in the pathology field, we searched for definitions of the terms. Where at least two sources provided definitions for a term, we assessed their level of agreement using an ad hoc developed scale. We identified 26 potentially misleading terms from the 5th edition Digestive System and Breast Tumour Books, and 16 sources. The number of definitions provided by the sources ranged from no definition (for four terms) to ten (for two terms). No source had definitions for all terms. We found only 111 (27%) of a possible 416 definitions. Where two or more definitions were present for a term, the level of agreement between them was judged to be high. There was a paucity of definitions for potentially misleading terms in the sources consulted, but there was a good agreement when two or more definitions were present. In a globalized world where healthcare workers and learners in many fields may access these sources to learn about terminology with which they are unfamiliar, the lack of definitions is a hindrance to a precise understanding of classification in the speciality of pathology and to clear communication between specialist groups.