Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41638487›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2026

Pan-tumor harmonization of pathologic response assessment for standardized data collection in neoadjuvant trials (PATHdata): results of a Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer multi-institutional reproducibility study.

J S Deutsch, T R Cottrell, K Y Chen, C E De Andrea, E Baraban, P O Fiset, J J Jedrych, C E Orr, F X Real, R Salgado and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Updated pan-tumor guidelines for neoadjuvant scoring of pathologic response: a joint SITC and INMC effort.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

J S DeutschDepartments of Dermatology, Pathology, and Oncology, The Bloomberg∼Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
T R CottrellQueen's University Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada.
K Y ChenDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
C E De AndreaDepartment of Pathology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
E BarabanDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
P O FisetDepartment of Pathology, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Canada.
J J JedrychDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
C E OrrDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
F X RealEpithelial Carcinogenesis Group, Molecular Oncology Programme, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas, Madrid, Spain.
R SalgadoDepartment of Pathology, ZAS Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium; Division of Research, Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
C M SchürchDepartment of Pathology and Neuropathology, University Hospital and Comprehensive Cancer Center Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Cluster of Excellence iFIT (EXC 2180) 'Image-Guided and Functionally Instructed Tumor Therapies', University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
R A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, Australia; Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
R SeethalaUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Pittsburgh, USA.
L M ShollDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
S SignorettiDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
M TetzlaffDepartments of Pathology and Dermatology, Dermatopathology and Oral Pathology Unit, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
H WangDivision of Quantitative Sciences, Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
T WangDivision of Quantitative Sciences, Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
A WeissferdtDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
X XuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
J ZiaiGenentech, Inc., San Francisco, USA.
A Cimino-MathewsDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA.
J M TaubeDepartments of Dermatology, Pathology, and Oncology, The Mark Foundation Center for Advanced Imaging and Genomics and The Bloomberg∼Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, USA. Electronic address: jtaube1@jhmi.edu.

Funding

WILD TYPE P53-BASED ADJUVANT IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR SCCHNP50CA097190 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Heath Devin Skinner · 2004 to 2026
$49.6M
PD-1/PD-L1 modulation in cancer therapyR01CA142779 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PARDOLL, DREW M., TAUBE, JANIS M · 2010 to 2025
$8.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097190NCI NIH HHS R01 CA142779
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathologic response is an emerging surrogate marker for therapeutic efficacy and long-term patient outcomes. Updated guidelines for pan-tumor pathologic response assessment have recently been adopted for ongoing clinical trials and routine clinical care. The goal of this study was to prospectively evaluate the interobserver variability among pathologists in assessments of treatment response across tumor types, anatomic locations, and specimen types. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multi-institutional, international study led by the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer was carried out to assess the concordance of pathologic response assessment using the pan-tumor criteria in neoadjuvant-treated resection specimens and on-treatment biopsies. Online lecture-based modules for scoring were developed, and 14 pathologists from multiple institutions were trained. The pathologists then assessed 42 specimens representing 12 different tumor types (total of n = 362 hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides) for the three tissue classes that are assessed: %residual viable tumor (RVT), %regression, and %necrosis. Pathologists were also surveyed regarding interest in and barriers related to pan-tumor pathologic response assessment, as well as quality and effectiveness of the training materials.

resultsScoring of pathologic response using the pan-tumor system was highly reproducible, irrespective of disease location (primary tumor versus lymph node) or specimen type (resection versus biopsy), with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.8 for %RVT, %regression, and %necrosis. Subset analyses also showed strong reproducibility of %RVT within almost all individual tumor types evaluated (ICC all ≥ 0.86). The poststudy survey completed by the participating pathologists was used to refine the training materials, and the revised modules are provided as a resource to the wider pathology and oncology communities.

conclusionsThis highly reproducible scoring system enables quantitative assessment of treatment response in pathology specimens across multiple tumor types, anatomic sites, disease stages, and therapies, akin to RECIST for radiographic assessment. We identified potential barriers to implementation and highlight strategies to overcome these challenges.

Indexed as

Data CollectionImmunotherapyNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicHumansObserver VariationProspective StudiesReproducibility of Resultsnecrosisneoadjuvantpathologic response assessmentregressionreproducibilityRVT

Identifiers

PMID41638487
PMCPMC13318441

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.