Neoplastic diseases are typically diagnosed by biopsy and histopathological evaluation. The pathology report is key in determining prognosis, therapeutic decisions, and overall case management and therefore requires diagnostic accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Successful management relies on collaboration between clinical veterinarians, oncologists, and pathologists. To date there has been no standardized approach or guideline for the submission, trimming, margin evaluation, or reporting of neoplastic biopsy specimens in veterinary medicine. To address this issue, a committee consisting of veterinary pathologists and oncologists was established under the auspices of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists Oncology Committee. These consensus guidelines were subsequently reviewed and endorsed by a large international group of veterinary pathologists. These recommended guidelines are not mandated but rather exist to help clinicians and veterinary pathologists optimally handle neoplastic biopsy samples. Many of these guidelines represent the collective experience of the committee members and consensus group when assessing neoplastic lesions from veterinary patients but have not met the rigors of definitive scientific study and investigation. These questions of technique, analysis, and evaluation should be put through formal scrutiny in rigorous clinical studies in the near future so that more definitive guidelines can be derived.
The heterogeneous and chaotic nature of osteosarcoma has confounded accurate molecular classification, prognosis, and prediction for this tumor. The occurrence of spontaneous osteosarcoma is largely confined to humans and dogs. While the clinical features are remarkably similar in both species, the organization of dogs into defined breeds provides a more homogeneous genetic background that may increase the likelihood to uncover molecular subtypes for this complex disease. We thus hypothesized that molecular profiles derived from canine osteosarcoma would aid in molecular subclassification of this disease when applied to humans. To test the hypothesis, we performed genome wide gene expression profiling in a cohort of dogs with osteosarcoma, primarily from high-risk breeds. To further reduce inter-sample heterogeneity, we assessed tumor-intrinsic properties through use of an extensive panel of osteosarcoma-derived cell lines. We observed strong differential gene expression that segregated samples into two groups with differential survival probabilities. Groupings were characterized by the inversely correlated expression of genes associated with G2/M transition and DNA damage checkpoint and microenvironment-interaction categories. This signature was preserved in data from whole tumor samples of three independent dog osteosarcoma cohorts, with stratification into the two expected groups. Significantly, this restricted signature partially overlapped a previously defined, predictive signature for soft tissue sarcomas, and it unmasked orthologous molecular subtypes and their corresponding natural histories in five independent data sets from human patients with osteosarcoma. Our results indicate that the narrower genetic diversity of dogs can be utilized to group complex human osteosarcoma into biologically and clinically relevant molecular subtypes. This in turn may enhance prognosis and prediction, and identify relevant therapeutic targets.
Twenty-four dogs and 30 cats with histopathologically confirmed salivary gland neoplasia were retrospectively reviewed in a multi-institutional study. The predominant presenting complaint for animals with salivary gland neoplasia was that of a mass being noted by the owner; other common complaints included halitosis, dysphagia, and exophthalmia. Siamese cats were overrepresented, indicating a possible breed predisposition. The most common histopathological type was simple adenocarcinoma. Cats had more advanced disease at diagnosis than did dogs, and clinical staging was prognostic in dogs. The median survival times for dogs and cats were 550 days and 516 days, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.