Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1280-1291

  Bossuyt, Veerle ^a   Provenzano, E ^b   Symmans, W F ^c   Boughey, J C ^d   Coles, C ^e   Curigliano, G ^f   Dixon, J M ^g   Esserman, L J ^h   Fastner, G ⁱ   Kuehn, T ^j   Peintinger, F ^i,k   Von Minckwitz, G ^l   White, J ^m   Yang, W ^c   Badve, S ⁿ   Denkert, C ^o   MacGrogan, G ^p   Penault Llorca, F ^q   Viale, G ^r   Cameron, D ^s   Davidson, Nancy E ^t   Piccart, Martine ^u   Norton, Larry ^v   Earl, Helena ^w   Alba, Emilio ^x   Lluch, Ana ^x   Albanell, Joan ^x   Amos, Keith ^y   Becette, Véronique ^z   Biernat, Wojciech ^aa   Bonnefoi, Hervé ^p   Buzdar, Aman ^c   Cane, Paul ^ab   Pinder, Sarah ^ab   Carson, Lesley ^ac   Dickson Witmer, Diana ^ad   Gong, Gyungyub ^ae   Green, Jimmy ^af   Hsu, Chih Yi ^ag   Tseng, Ling Ming ^ag   Kroep, Judith ^ah   Marilyn Leitch, A ^ai   Sarode, Venetia ^ai   Mamounas, Eleftherios ^aj   Marcom, Paul Kelly ^ak   Nuciforo, Paolo ^al   Paik, Soonmyung ^aj,am   Peg, Vicente ^an   Peston, David ^ao   Pierga, Jean Yves ^z   Quintela Fandino, Miguel ^ap   Salgado, Roberto ^u   Sikov, William ^aq   Thomas, Jeremy ^g   Unzeitig, Gary ^ar   Wesseling, Jelle ^as   Wilt, Marc ^at   more..

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^g WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^j KLINIKUM ESSLINGEN   (Germany)

^k MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^l UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FRANKFURT   (Germany)

^m OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^o CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^p INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

^q CENTRE JEAN PERRIN   (France)

^r UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^s UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^t UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^u JULES BORDET INSTITUTE   (Belgium)

^v MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^w UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^x GEICAM (Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group)   (Spain)

^y UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^z INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^aa MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GDANSK   (Poland)

^ab GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^ac ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^ad Christiana Care   (United States)

^ae University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^af Pathology Sciences Medical Group/Sentara Laboratory Services   (United States)

^ag TAIPEI VETERANS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^ah LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^ai UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^aj NSABP Foundation Inc   (United States)

^ak DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^al VALL D HEBRON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Spain)

^am Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^an HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI VALL D HEBRON   (Spain)

^ao CHARING CROSS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^ap Centro Nacional de Investigations Oncológicas   (Spain)

^aq WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^ar Laredo Breast Care   (United States)

^as NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^at CENTRE PAUL STRAUSS   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant systemic therapy; Pathologic assessment; Pathologic complete response; Residual disease; Response evaluation

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; HORMONE RECEPTOR; KI 67 ANTIGEN; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; HUMAN; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; TISSUE SECTION; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGNOSIS; STANDARDS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 84940719491     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv161     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384:164-172.
2. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL-CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3242-3249.
3. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1796-1804.
4. Esserman LJ, Woodcock J. Accelerating identification and regulatory approval of investigational cancer drugs. JAMA 2011; 306: 2608-2609.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: pathological complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. 2014. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM305501.pdf (30 October 2014, date last accessed).
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration News Release. FDA approves Perjeta for neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment: first drug approved for use in preoperative breast cancer. 2013. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ ucm370393.htm (30 October 2014, date last accessed).
7. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3960-3966.
8. Fan F. Evaluation and reporting of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3: 58-63.
9. Marchio C, Sapino A. The pathologic complete response open question in primary therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011; 2011: 86-90.
10. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Earl H, Ellis IO. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50: 409-417.
11. Sahoo S, Lester SC. Pathology of breast carcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an overview with recommendations on specimen processing and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 633-642.
12. Dieras V, Fumoleau P, Romieu G et al. Randomized parallel study of doxorubicin plus paclitaxel and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4958-4965.
13. Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP et al. Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol 1993; 16: 223-228.
14. Provenzano E, Bossuyt V, Viale G et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of post-neoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer:recommendations from an international working group. Mod Pathol 2015; in press.
15. Loi S, Symmans WF, Bartlett JM et al. Proposals for uniform collection of biospecimens from neoadjuvant breast cancer clinical trials: timing and specimen types. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 1162-1168.
16. Braeuning MP, Burke ET, Pisano ED. Embolization coils as tumor markers for mammography in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 251-252.
17. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 609-618.
18. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Turner RM et al. Preoperative ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of axillary nodes in invasive breast cancer: meta-analysis of its accuracy and utility in staging the axilla. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 243-251.
19. Rajan R, Poniecka A, Smith TL et al. Change in tumor cellularity of breast carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a variable in the pathologic assessment of response. Cancer 2004; 100: 1365-1373.
20. Peintinger F, Kuerer HM, McGuire SE et al. Residual specimen cellularity after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 433-437.
21. Chagpar AB, Middleton LP, Sahin AA et al. Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 2006; 243:257-264.
22. Coles CE, Wilson CB, Cumming J et al. Titanium clip placement to allow accurate tumour bed localisation following breast conserving surgery: audit on behalf of the IMPORT Trial Management Group. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35:578-582.
23. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al. (eds). American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition. New York, NY: Springer 2009.
24. Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumornode- metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1137-1142.
25. Residual Cancer Burden calculator and associated documents [Guide for Measuring Cancer Cellularity, Examples of Gross & Microscopic Evaluation, Pathology Protocol for Macroscopic and Microscopic Assessment of RCB]. Houston, Texas: MD Anderson Cancer Center. http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/ medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3 (30 October 2014, date last accessed).
26. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4414-4422.
27. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180: 297-306.
28. Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12: 320-327.
29. National Cancer Institute. Breast Oncology Local Disease (BOLD) Task Force of the Breast Cancer Steering Committee. NCI BOLD Task Force Common Data Elements (CDEs). http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/organization/ccct/steering-committees/breastcancer/ (30 October 2014, date last accessed).
30. Symmans WF. Pathologic Evaluation After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy:Standardizing Management of the Surgical Specimen and Assessing Response to Neoadjuvant Therapies: The Promises and Challenges of Pathologic Complete Response. Regulatory Science and Policy Session, 8 April 2013. American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting: Washington, DC, USA; 2013. http://webcast.aacr.org/console/player/20130?mediaType=audio& (30 October 2014, date last accessed).
31. Mukhtar RA, Yau C, Rosen M et al. Clinically meaningful tumor reduction rates vary by prechemotherapy MRI phenotype and tumor subtype in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3823-3830.
32. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. (eds). American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag 2002.
33. Mittendorf EA, Jeruss JS, Tucker SL et al. Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1956-1962.
34. Peintinger F, Sinn B, Hatzis C et al. Reproducibility of Residual Cancer Burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol 2015; May 1 [epub ahead of print], doi:10.1038/modpathol.2015.53.
35. Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1304-1310.
36. McCready DR, Hortobagyi GN, Kau SW et al. The prognostic significance of lymph node metastases after preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Arch Surg 1989; 124: 21-25.
37. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 778-785.
38. Buchholz TA, Tucker SL, Masullo L et al. Predictors of local-regional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy without radiation. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 17-23.
39. Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 9304-9311.
40. Klauber-DeMore N, Ollila DW, Moore DT et al. Size of residual lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients is prognostic. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13: 685-691.
41. Corben AD, Abi-Raad R, Popa I et al. Pathologic response and long-term follow-up in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison between classifications and their practical application. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137: 1074-1082.
42. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 310: 1455-1461.
43. Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy:findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 2002; 95: 681-695.
44. Feldman S, Krishnamurthy S, Gillanders W et al. A novel automated assay for the rapid identification of metastatic breast carcinoma in sentinel lymph nodes. Cancer 2011; 117: 2599-2607.
45. Visser M, Jiwa M, Horstman A et al. Intra-operative rapid diagnostic method based on CK19 mRNA expression for the detection of lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 2562-2567.
46. Newman LA, Pernick NL, Adsay V et al. Histopathologic evidence of tumor regression in the axillary lymph nodes of patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy correlates with breast cancer outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 734-739.
47. Donnelly J, Parham DM, Hickish T et al. Axillary lymph node scarring and the association with tumour response following neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for breast cancer. Breast 2001; 10: 61-66.
48. Jabbour MN, Massad CY, Boulos FI. Variability in hormone and growth factor receptor expression in primary versus recurrent, metastatic, and post-neoadjuvant breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 29-37.
49. Zhang N, Moran MS, Huo Q et al. The hormonal receptor status in breast cancer can be altered by neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Cancer Invest 2011; 29: 594-598.
50. Mittendorf EA, Wu Y, Scaltriti M et al. Loss of HER2 amplification following trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant systemic therapy and survival outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 7381-7388.
51. von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, Loibl S et al. Responsiveness of adjacent ductal carcinoma in situ and changes in HER2 status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy/ trastuzumab treatment in early breast cancer-results from the GeparQuattro study (GBG 40). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 132: 863-870.
52. Pusztai L, Viale G, Kelly CM, Hudis CA. Estrogen and HER-2 receptor discordance between primary breast cancer and metastasis. Oncologist 2010; 15: 1164-1168.
53. Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Luo J et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1380-1388.
54. Jones RL, Salter J, A'Hern R et al. The prognostic significance of Ki67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 116: 53-68.
55. von Minckwitz G, Schmitt W, Loibl S et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 4521-4531.
56. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer:recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1656-1664.
57. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5287-5312.
58. Polley MC, Leung S, McShane LM et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1897-1906.
59. Sheri A, Smith IE, Johnston SR et al. Residual proliferative cancer burden to predict long-term outcome following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 75-80.
60. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:2650-2655.
61. Hatzis C, Gould RE, Zhang Y et al. Predicting Improvements in Survival Based on Improvements in Pathologic Response Rate to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Different Breast Cancer Subtypes [Abstract P6-06-37]. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2013.
62. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R et al. Long-term Prognostic Value of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Classification Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy [Abstract S6-02]. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2013.
63. Earl HM, Chin S, Dunning M et al. Neo-tAnGo science: a translational study of PAM 50 sub-typing in sequential fresh tissue samples during neoadjuvant chemotherapy [Abstract 1015]. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: (suppl; abstr 1015).