Aims: Following the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer, grading of tumour regression (TR) has become part of routine diagnostics. However, it suffers from marked interobserver variation, which is mainly ascribed to the subjectivity of the defining criteria of the categories in TR grading systems. We hypothesized that a further cause for the interobserver variation is the use of divergent and nonspecific morphological criteria to identify tumour regression.
Methods and results: Twenty treatment-naïve pancreatic cancers and 20 pancreatic cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were reviewed by three experienced pancreatic pathologists who, blinded for treatment status, categorized each tumour as treatment-naïve or neoadjuvantly treated, and annotated all tissue areas they considered showing tumour regression. Only 50%-65% of the cases were categorized correctly, and the annotated tissue areas were highly discrepant (only 3%-41% overlap). When the prevalence of various morphological features deemed to indicate TR was compared between treatment-naïve and neoadjuvantly treated tumours, only one pattern, characterized by reduced cancer cell density and prominent stroma affecting a large area of the tumour bed, occurred significantly more frequently, but not exclusively, in the neoadjuvantly treated group. Finally, stromal features, both morphological and biological, were investigated as possible markers for tumour regression, but failed to distinguish TR from native tumour stroma.
Conclusion: There is considerable divergence in opinion between pathologists when it comes to the identification of tumour regression. Reliable identification of TR is only possible if it is extensive, while lesser degrees of treatment effect cannot be recognized with certainty.
Keywords: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; observer variation; pancreatic cancer; pathology; therapeutic effect.
© 2024 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.