Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Sara Hafezi-Bakhtiari
Based on 3 articles published since 2009
(Why 3 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, Sara Hafezi-Bakhtiari wrote the following 3 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Gastric foveolar dysplasia: a survey of reporting habits and diagnostic criteria. 2017

Serra, Stefano / Ali, Rola / Bateman, Adrian C / Dasgupta, Kaushik / Deshpande, Vikram / Driman, David K / Gibbons, David / Grin, Andrea / Hafezi-Bakhtiari, Sara / Sheahan, Kieran / Srivastava, Amitabh / Szentgyorgyi, Eva / Vajpeyi, Rajkumar / Walsh, Shaun / Wang, Lai Mun / Chetty, Runjan. ·Department of Pathology, University Health Network/University of Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: Stefano.serra@uhn.ca. · Department of Pathology, Kuwait University, Kuwait. · Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. · Department of Pathology, University Hospital of North Tees, UK. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. · Department of Pathology, London Health Sciences Centre/Western University, Canada. · Department of Pathology, St Luke's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. · Department of Pathology, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. · Department of Pathology, University Health Network/University of Toronto, Canada. · Department of Pathology, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. · Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. · Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK. · Department of Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford, UK. ·Pathology · Pubmed #28438394.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to ascertain views, incidence of reporting and diagnostic criteria for gastric foveolar dysplasia. A questionnaire, a post-questionnaire discussion and microscopic assessment of selected cases was conducted by gastrointestinal pathologists to explore the above-stated aims. Fifty-four percent of respondents never or rarely diagnosed gastric foveolar-type dysplasia. The general consensus was that round nuclei, lack of nuclear stratification, presence of inflammation/damage and surface maturation favoured reactive change; while architectural abnormalities/complexity and nuclear enlargement mainly were used to separate low-grade from high-grade foveolar dysplasia. Immunohistochemistry was rarely used to make the diagnosis of dysplasia and was thought not to be of help in routine practice. Inter-observer agreement in grading of dysplasia versus reactive, and the type of dysplasia (foveolar versus adenomatous), was substantial/almost perfect amongst 35.7% and 21.4% of participants, respectively. This reflects low reproducibility in making these diagnoses. In conclusion, foveolar dysplasia was a rarely made diagnosis among 14 gastrointestinal pathologists, there are no uniform criteria for diagnosis and there is poor inter-observer agreement in separating low-grade foveolar dysplasia from reactive gastric mucosa and low-grade adenomatous dysplasia. Greater awareness and agreed criteria will prevent misdiagnosis of low-grade foveolar dysplasia as reactive, and vice versa.

2 Article Regression grading in neoadjuvant treated pancreatic cancer: an interobserver study. 2017

N Kalimuthu, Sangeetha / Serra, Stefano / Dhani, Neesha / Hafezi-Bakhtiari, Sara / Szentgyorgyi, Eva / Vajpeyi, Rajkumar / Chetty, Runjan. ·Laboratory Medicine Program, Department of Pathology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Laboratory Medicine Program, Department of Medical Oncology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ·J Clin Pathol · Pubmed #27681847.

ABSTRACT: AIM: Several regression grading systems have been proposed for neoadjuvant chemoradiation-treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aimed to examine the utility, reproducibility and level of concordance of three most frequently used grading systems. METHODS: Four gastrointestinal pathologists used the College of American Pathologists (CAP), Evans, MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDA) regression grading systems to grade 14 selected cases (7-20 slides from each case) of neoadjuvant chemoradiation-treated PDAC. A postscoring discussion with each pathologist was conducted. The results were entered into a standardised data collection form and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: There was little concordance across the three systems. The Kendall coefficient of concordance agreement scores were: CAP: 2-poor, 2-fair; Evans: 1-fair, 1-moderate, 2-good; MDA: 1-poor, 2-moderate, 1-good. Interpretation in all three grades in the CAP grading system was a source of discrepancy. Furthermore, using fibrosis as a criterion to assess regression was contentious. In the Evans system, quantifying tumour destruction using arbitrary percentage cut-offs (ie, 9% vs 10%; 50% vs 51%, etc) was imprecise and subjective. Although the MDA system generated greatest concordance, this was due to 'oversimplification' surrounding wide, arbitrarily assigned thresholds of 5% of tumour. CONCLUSIONS: All systems lacked precision and clarity for accurate regression grading. Presently the clinical utility and impact of histological regression grading in patient management is questionable. There is a need to re-evaluate regression grading in the pancreas and establish a reproducible, clinically relevant grading system.

3 Article A renewed model of pancreatic cancer evolution based on genomic rearrangement patterns. 2016

Notta, Faiyaz / Chan-Seng-Yue, Michelle / Lemire, Mathieu / Li, Yilong / Wilson, Gavin W / Connor, Ashton A / Denroche, Robert E / Liang, Sheng-Ben / Brown, Andrew M K / Kim, Jaeseung C / Wang, Tao / Simpson, Jared T / Beck, Timothy / Borgida, Ayelet / Buchner, Nicholas / Chadwick, Dianne / Hafezi-Bakhtiari, Sara / Dick, John E / Heisler, Lawrence / Hollingsworth, Michael A / Ibrahimov, Emin / Jang, Gun Ho / Johns, Jeremy / Jorgensen, Lars G T / Law, Calvin / Ludkovski, Olga / Lungu, Ilinca / Ng, Karen / Pasternack, Danielle / Petersen, Gloria M / Shlush, Liran I / Timms, Lee / Tsao, Ming-Sound / Wilson, Julie M / Yung, Christina K / Zogopoulos, George / Bartlett, John M S / Alexandrov, Ludmil B / Real, Francisco X / Cleary, Sean P / Roehrl, Michael H / McPherson, John D / Stein, Lincoln D / Hudson, Thomas J / Campbell, Peter J / Gallinger, Steven. ·Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario M5G 0A3, Canada. · Cancer Genome Project, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK. · UHN Program in BioSpecimen Sciences, Department of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. · Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L7, Canada. · Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada. · Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G4, Canada. · Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198, USA. · Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada. · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada. · Division of Surgical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. · Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. · Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Qu├ębec, Canada, H3H 2L9. · Theoretical Biology and Biophysics (T-6) and Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, 87545. · Epithelial Carcinogenesis Group, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid 28029, Spain. · Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, Canada. · Department of Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. · Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0XY, UK. ·Nature · Pubmed #27732578.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer, a highly aggressive tumour type with uniformly poor prognosis, exemplifies the classically held view of stepwise cancer development. The current model of tumorigenesis, based on analyses of precursor lesions, termed pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasm (PanINs) lesions, makes two predictions: first, that pancreatic cancer develops through a particular sequence of genetic alterations (KRAS, followed by CDKN2A, then TP53 and SMAD4); and second, that the evolutionary trajectory of pancreatic cancer progression is gradual because each alteration is acquired independently. A shortcoming of this model is that clonally expanded precursor lesions do not always belong to the tumour lineage, indicating that the evolutionary trajectory of the tumour lineage and precursor lesions can be divergent. This prevailing model of tumorigenesis has contributed to the clinical notion that pancreatic cancer evolves slowly and presents at a late stage. However, the propensity for this disease to rapidly metastasize and the inability to improve patient outcomes, despite efforts aimed at early detection, suggest that pancreatic cancer progression is not gradual. Here, using newly developed informatics tools, we tracked changes in DNA copy number and their associated rearrangements in tumour-enriched genomes and found that pancreatic cancer tumorigenesis is neither gradual nor follows the accepted mutation order. Two-thirds of tumours harbour complex rearrangement patterns associated with mitotic errors, consistent with punctuated equilibrium as the principal evolutionary trajectory. In a subset of cases, the consequence of such errors is the simultaneous, rather than sequential, knockout of canonical preneoplastic genetic drivers that are likely to set-off invasive cancer growth. These findings challenge the current progression model of pancreatic cancer and provide insights into the mutational processes that give rise to these aggressive tumours.