Chronic kidney disease (CKD) represents one of today\'s main public health problems. Serum creatinine measurement and estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are the main tools for evaluating renal function. There are several equations to estimate GFR, and CKD-EPI equation (Chronic Kidney Disease - Epidemiology) is the most recommended one. There are still some controversies regarding serum creatinine measurement and GFR estimation, since several factors can interfere in this process. An important recent change was the removal of the correction for race from the equations for estimating GFR, which overestimated kidney function, and consequently delayed the implementation of treatments such as dialysis and kidney transplantation. In this consensus document from the Brazilian Societies of Nephrology and Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, the main concepts related to the assessment of renal function are reviewed, as well as possible existing controversies and recommendations for estimating GFR in clinical practice.

UNASSIGNED: In 2014, the College of American Pathologists developed an evidence-based guideline to address analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays. Fourteen recommendations were offered. Per the National Academy of Medicine standards for developing trustworthy guidelines, guidelines should be updated when new evidence suggests modifications.
UNASSIGNED: To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and develop updated evidence-based recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and update the original guideline recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
UNASSIGNED: Two strong recommendations, 1 conditional recommendation, and 12 good practice statements are offered in this updated guideline. They address analytic validation or verification of predictive and nonpredictive assays, and recommended revalidation procedures following changes in assay conditions.
UNASSIGNED: While many of the original guideline statements remain similar, new recommendations address analytic validation of assays with distinct scoring systems, such as programmed death receptor-1 and analytic verification of US Food and Drug Administration approved/cleared assays; more specific guidance is offered for validating immunohistochemistry performed on cytology specimens.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 ASVCP Education Committee Forum for Discussion, presented at the annual ASVCP/ACVP meeting, identified a need to develop recommendations for teaching laboratory quality management principles in veterinary clinical pathology residency training programs.
OBJECTIVE: To present a competency-based framework for teaching laboratory quality management principles in veterinary clinical pathology residency training programs, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), domains of competence, individual competencies, and learning outcomes.
METHODS: A joint subcommittee of the ASVCP Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards (QALS) and Education Committees executed this project. A draft guideline version was reviewed by the ASVCP membership and shared with selected ACVP committees in early 2022, and a final version was voted upon by the full QALS and Education Committees in late 2022.
RESULTS: Eleven domains of competence with relevant individual competencies were identified. In addition, suggested learning outcomes and resource lists were developed. Domains and individual competencies were mapped to six EPAs.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline presents a framework for teaching principles of laboratory quality management in veterinary clinical pathology residency training programs and was designed to be comprehensive yet practical. Guidance on pedagogical terms and possible routes of implementation are included. Recommendations herein aim to improve and support resident training but may require gradual implementation, as programs phase in necessary expertise and resources. Future directions include the development of learning milestones and assessments and consideration of how recommendations intersect with the American College of Veterinary Pathologists training program accreditation and certifying examination.

The Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists (IAPM) and Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG) decided to make a joint consensus recommendation for handling, processing, and interpretation of SI biopsies for the diagnosis and management of celiac disease (CD) recognizing the inhomogeneous practice of biopsy sampling, orientation, processing, and interpretation. A modified Delphi process was used to develop this consensus document containing a total of 42 statements and recommendations, which were generated by sharing the document draft, incorporating expert\'s opinion, followed by three cycles of electronic voting as well as a full-day face-to-face virtual ZOOM meeting and review of supporting literature. Of the 42 statements, 7 statements are on small intestinal (SI) biopsy in suspected patients of CD, site and the number of biopsies; 7 on handling, fixative, orientation, processing, and sectioning in pathology laboratories; 2 on histological orientation; 13 statements on histological interpretation and histological grading; 3 on the assessment of follow-up biopsies; 2 statements on gluten-free diet (GFD)-nonresponsive CD; 4 on challenges in the diagnosis of CD; 2 statements each on pathology reporting protocol and training and infrastructure in this area. The goal of this guideline document is to formulate a uniform protocol agreed upon both by the experienced pathologists and gastroenterologists to standardize the practice, improve the yield of small bowel biopsy interpretation, patients\' compliance, overall management in CD, and generate unified data for patient care and research in the related field.

暂无摘要。

Tumor budding is a long-established independent adverse prognostic marker in colorectal cancer, yet methods for its assessment have varied widely. In an effort to standardize its reporting, a group of experts met in Bern, Switzerland, in 2016 to reach consensus on a single, international, evidence-based method for tumor budding assessment and reporting (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC]). Tumor budding assessment using the ITBCC criteria has been validated in large cohorts of cancer patients and incorporated into several international colorectal cancer pathology and clinical guidelines. With the wider reporting of tumor budding, new issues have emerged that require further clarification. To better inform researchers and health-care professionals on these issues, an international group of experts in gastrointestinal pathology participated in a modified Delphi process to generate consensus and highlight areas requiring further research. This effort serves to re-affirm the importance of tumor budding in colorectal cancer and support its continued use in routine clinical practice.

In 2019, the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) held their own consensus conferences on prostate cancer grading and reporting, with separately published manuscripts. The majority of GUPS and ISUP grading recommendations are compatible, but for some issues there is a lack of concordance or recommendations between the societies. As a result, both in practice and in research, these differences may manifest in difficulties when comparing pathology reports or data.

The diagnostic workup of lymphoma continues to evolve rapidly as experience and discovery led to the addition of new clinicopathologic entities and techniques to differentiate them. The optimal clinically effective, efficient, and cost-effective approach to diagnosis that is safe for patients can be elusive, in both community-based and academic practice. Studies suggest that there is variation in practice in both settings.
To develop an evidence-based guideline for the preanalytic phase of testing, focusing on specimen requirements for the diagnostic evaluation of lymphoma.
The American Society for Clinical Pathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts in the laboratory workup of lymphoma to develop evidence-based recommendations. The panel conducted a systematic review of literature to address key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, recommendations were derived based on the available evidence, strength of that evidence, and key judgements as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework.
Thirteen guideline statements were established to optimize specimen selection, ancillary diagnostic testing, and appropriate follow-up for safe and accurate diagnosis of indolent and aggressive lymphoma.
Primary diagnosis and classification of lymphoma can be achieved with a variety of specimens. Application of the recommendations can guide decisions on specimen suitability, diagnostic capabilities, and correct use of ancillary testing. Disease prevalence in patient populations, availability of ancillary testing, and diagnostic goals should be incorporated into algorithms tailored to each practice environment.

Complete resection of adrenal cortical carcinoma (ACC) with or without adjuvant therapy offers the best outcome. Recurrence is common, and in individual cases, the long-term outcome is difficult to predict, making it challenging to personalize treatment options. Current risk stratification approaches are based on clinical and conventional surgical pathology assessment. Rigorous and uniform pathological assessment may improve care for individual patients and facilitate multi-institutional collaborative studies. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) convened an expert panel to review ACC pathology reporting. Consensus recommendations were made based on the most recent literature and expert opinion. The data set comprises 23 core (required) items. The core pathological features include the following: diagnosis as per the current World Health Organization classification, specimen integrity, greatest dimension, weight, extent of invasion, architecture, percentage of lipid-rich cells, capsular invasion, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, atypical mitotic figures, coagulative necrosis, nuclear grade, mitotic count, Ki-67 proliferative index, margin status, lymph node status, and pathological stage. Tumors were dichotomized into low-grade (<20 mitoses per 10 mm2) and high-grade (>20 mitoses per 10 mm2) ones. Additional noncore elements that may be useful in individual cases included several multifactorial risk assessment systems (Weiss, modified Weiss, Lin-Weiss-Bisceglia, reticulin, Helsinki, and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology scores/algorithms). This data set is now available through the ICCR website with the hope of better standardizing pathological assessment of these relatively rare but important malignancies.

Tumour budding in colorectal cancer, defined as single tumour cells or small clusters containing four or fewer tumour cells, is a robust and independent biomarker of aggressive tumour biology. On the basis of published data in the literature, the evidence is certainly in favour of reporting tumour budding in routine practice. One important aspect of implementing tumour budding has been to establish a standardised and evidence-based scoring method, as was recommended by the International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) in 2016. Further developments have aimed at establishing methods for automated tumour budding assessment. A digital approach to scoring tumour buds has great potential to assist in performing an objective budding count but, like the manual consensus method, must be validated and standardised. The aim of the present review is to present general considerations behind the ITBCC scoring method, and a broad overview of the current situation and challenges regarding automated tumour budding detection methods.