The early endosome is organised into domains to ensure the separation of cargo. Activated mitogenic receptors, such as epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor, are concentrated into vacuoles enriched for the small GTPase Rab5, which progressively exclude nutrient receptors, such as transferrin receptor, into neighbouring tubules. These vacuoles become enlarged, increase their content of intralumenal vesicles as EGF receptor is sorted from the limiting membrane, and eventually mature to late endosomes. Maturation is governed by the loss of Rab5 and is accompanied by the movement of endosomes along microtubules towards the cell centre. Here, we show that EGF relocates to the cell centre in a dynein-dependent fashion, concomitant with the sorting away of transferrin receptor, although it remains in Rab5-positive early endosomes. When dynein function is acutely disrupted, efficient recycling of transferrin from EGF-containing endosomes is retarded, loss of Rab5 is slowed and endosome enlargement is reduced.

OBJECTIVE We previously showed that in patients with diabetes mellitus, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) monitoring outside international guidance on testing frequency is widespread. Here we examined the relationship between testing frequency and diabetes control to test the hypothesis that retest interval is linked to change in HbA1c level. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We examined repeat HbA1c tests (400,497 tests in 79,409 patients, 2008–2011) processed by three U.K. clinical laboratories. We examined the relationship between retest interval and 1) percentage change in HbA1c and 2) proportion of cases showing a significant HbA1c rise. The effect of demographics factors on these findings was also explored. RESULTS Our data showed that the optimal testing frequency required to maximize the downward trajectory in HbA1c was four times per year, particularly in those with an initial HbA1c of ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol), supporting international guidance. Testing 3-monthly was associated with a 3.8% reduction in HbA1c compared with a 1.5% increase observed with annual testing; testing more frequently provided no additional benefit. Compared with annual monitoring, 3-monthly testing was associated with a halving of the proportion showing a significant rise in HbA1c (7–10 vs. 15–20%). CONCLUSIONS These findings provide, in a large, multicenter data set, objective evidence that testing outside guidance on HbA1c monitoring frequency is associated with a significant detrimental effect on diabetes control. To achieve the optimum downward trajectory in HbA1c, monitoring frequency should be quarterly, particularly in cases with suboptimal HbA1c. While this impact appears small, optimizing monitoring frequency across the diabetes population may have major implications for diabetes control and comorbidity risk.

BACKGROUND:Estimates suggest that approximately 25% of requests for pathology tests are unnecessary. Even in diabetes, for which international guidance provides recommended testing frequency, considerable variability in requesting practice exists. Using the diabetes marker, Hb A 1c , we examined (a) the prevalence of under-and overrequesting, (b) the impact of international guidance on prevalence, and (c) practice-to-practice variability.

Digital pathology and image analysis potentially provide greater accuracy, reproducibility and standardisation of pathology‐based trial entry criteria and endpoints, alongside extracting new insights from both existing and novel features. Image analysis has great potential to identify, extract and quantify features in greater detail in comparison to pathologist assessment, which may produce improved prediction models or perform tasks beyond manual capability. In this article, we provide an overview of the utility of such technologies in clinical trials and provide a discussion of the potential applications, current challenges, limitations and remaining unanswered questions that require addressing prior to routine adoption in such studies. We reiterate the value of central review of pathology in clinical trials, and discuss inherent logistical, cost and performance advantages of using a digital approach. The current and emerging regulatory landscape is outlined. The role of digital platforms and remote learning to improve the training and performance of clinical trial pathologists is discussed. The impact of image analysis on quantitative tissue morphometrics in key areas such as standardisation of immunohistochemical stain interpretation, assessment of tumour cellularity prior to molecular analytical applications and the assessment of novel histological features is described. The standardisation of digital image production, establishment of criteria for digital pathology use in pre‐clinical and clinical studies, establishment of performance criteria for image analysis algorithms and liaison with regulatory bodies to facilitate incorporation of image analysis applications into clinical practice are key issues to be addressed to improve digital pathology incorporation into clinical trials.

Background We previously showed, in patients with diabetes, that >50% of monitoring tests for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) are outside recommended intervals and that this is linked to diabetes control. Here, we examined the effect of tests/year on achievement of commonly utilised HbA1c targets and on HbA1c changes over time. Methods Data on 20,690 adults with diabetes with a baseline HbA1c of >53 mmol/mol (7%) were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory records at three UK hospitals. We examined the effect of HbA1c tests/year on (i) the probability of achieving targets of ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in a year using multi-state modelling and (ii) the changes in mean HbA1c using a linear mixed-effects model. Results The probabilities of achieving ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) targets within 1 year were 0.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.21) and 0.10 (0.09–0.10), respectively. Compared with four tests/year, having one test or more than four tests/year were associated with lower likelihoods of achieving either target; two to three tests/year gave similar likelihoods to four tests/year. Mean HbA1c levels were higher in patients who had one test/year compared to those with four tests/year (mean difference: 2.64 mmol/mol [0.24%], p<0.001). Conclusions We showed that ≥80% of patients with suboptimal control are not achieving commonly recommended HbA1c targets within 1 year, highlighting the major challenge facing healthcare services. We also demonstrated that, although appropriate monitoring frequency is important, testing every 6 months is as effective as quarterly testing, supporting international recommendations. We suggest that the importance HbA1c monitoring frequency is being insufficiently recognised in diabetes management.

Clinical trials rely on multidisciplinary teams for successful delivery. Pathologists should be involved in clinical trial design from the outset to ensure that protocols are optimised to deliver maximum data collection and translational research opportunities. Clinical trials must be performed according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the trial sponsor has an obligation to ensure that all of the personnel involved in the trial have undergone training relevant to their role. Pathologists who are involved in the delivery of clinical trials are often required to undergo formal GCP training and may additionally undergo Good Clinical Laboratory Practice training if they are involved in the laboratory analysis of trials samples. Further training can be provided via trial‐specific investigator meetings, which may be either multidisciplinary or discipline‐specific events. Pathologists should also ensure that they undertake External Quality Assurance schemes relevant to the area of diagnostic practice required in the trial. The level of engagement of pathologists in academia and clinical trials research has declined in the United Kingdom over recent years. This paper recommends the optimal training and accreditation for pathologists undertaking clinical trials activities with the aim of facilitating increased engagement. Clinical trials training should ideally be provided to all pathologists through centrally organised educational events, with additional training provided to pathologists in training through local postgraduate teaching. Pathologists in training should also be strongly encouraged to undertake GCP training. It is hoped that these recommendations will increase the number of pathologists who take part in clinical trials research in order to ensure a high level and standard of data collection and to maximise the translational research opportunities.

High‐quality histopathology is essential for the success of clinical trials. Histopathologists have a detailed understanding of tumour biology and mechanisms of disease, as well as practical knowledge of optimal tissue handling and logistical service requirements for study delivery, such as biomarker evaluation, tissue acquisition and turnaround times. As such, histopathologist input is essential throughout every stage of research and clinical trials, from concept development and study design to trial delivery, analysis and dissemination of results. Patient recruitment to trials takes place among all healthcare settings, meaning that histopathologists make an invaluable contribution to clinical trials as part of their routine day‐to‐day work that often goes unrecognised. More complex evaluation of surgical specimens in the neoadjuvant setting and ever‐expanding minimum data sets add to the workload of every histopathologist, not just academic pathologists in tertiary centres. This is occurring against a backdrop of increasing workload pressures and a worldwide shortage of histopathologists and biomedical scientists. Providing essential histopathology support for trials at grassroots level requires funding for adequate resources including histopathologist time, education and training, biomedical scientist and administrative support and greater recognition of the contribution made by histopathology. This paper will discuss the many ways in which histopathologists are involved in clinical trials and the challenges faced in meeting the additional demands posed by trial participation and potential ways to address this, with a special emphasis on the UK model and the Cellular–Molecular Pathology Initiative (CM‐Path).

The input of pathologists is essential for the conduct of many forms of research, including clinical trials. As the custodians of patient samples, pathology departments have a duty to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, standards and guidelines to ensure the ethical and effective use for their intended investigational analysis. This includes where patients are participating in a research study. The results of research studies have impacts beyond the research study itself as they may inform changes in policy and practice or support the licensing of medicines and devices. Compliance with regulations and standards provides public assurance that the rights, safety and wellbeing of research participants are protected, that the data have been collected and processed to ensure their integrity and that the research will achieve its purpose. The requirements of the regulatory environment should not be seen as a barrier to research and should not significantly impact on the work of the laboratory once established and integrated into practice. This paper highlights important regulations, policy, standards and available guidance documents that apply to research involving NHS pathology departments and academic laboratories that are contributing to research involving human subjects.