Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: Recommendations from an international working group

Modern Pathology

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 1185-1201

  Provenzano, Elen ^a   Bossuyt, Veerle ^b   Viale, Giuseppe ^c   Cameron, David ^d   Badve, Sunil ^e   Denkert, Carsten ^f   Macgrogan, Gaëtan ^g   Penault Llorca, Frédérique ^h   Boughey, Judy ⁱ   Curigliano, Giuseppe ^j   Dixon, J Michael ^k   Esserman, Laura ^l   Fastner, Gerd ^m   Kuehn, Thorsten ⁿ   Peintinger, Florentia ^o,p   Von Minckwitz, Gunter ^q   White, Julia ^r   Yang, Wei ^s   Symmans, W Fraser ^s  

^a ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^e INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^g INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

^h CENTRE JEAN PERRIN   (France)

ⁱ MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^j EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^k WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^m PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

ⁿ KLINIKUM ESSLINGEN   (Germany)

^o MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^p General Hospital of Leoben   (Austria)

^q UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FRANKFURT   (Germany)

^r OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

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

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STANDARD; THICKNESS; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR INVASION; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARDS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 84940721557     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.74     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Esserman LJ, Woodcock J. Accelerating identification and regulatory approval of investigational cancer drugs. JAMA 2011;306:2608-2609.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Apple SK, Suthar F. How do we measure a residual tumor size in histopathology (the gold standard) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast 2006;15: 370-376.
5. Kuroi K, Toi M, Tsuda H et al. Issues in the assessment of the pathologic effect of primary systemic therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2006;13:38-48.
6. Marchio C, Sapino A. The pathologic complete response open question in primary therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011;2011:86-90.
7. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Earl H et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007;50:409-417.
8. 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.
9. Fan F. Evaluation and reporting of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009;3: 58-63.
10. 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.
11. Chollet P, Abrial C, Durando X et al. A new prognostic classification after primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN). Cancer J 2008;14:128-132.
12. Chollet P, Amat S, Belembaogo E et al. Is Nottingham prognostic index useful after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer? Br J Cancer 2003;89: 1185-1191.
13. 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.
14. Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, Raoelfils I et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff's pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008;39:1221-1228.
15. 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.
16. Romero A, Garcia-Saenz JA, Fuentes-Ferrer M et al. Correlation between response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2013;24:655-661.
17. 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.
18. 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;28:913-920.
19. 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 Breast Cancer Symposium: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2013.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Invasive Breast Cancer Structured Reporting Protocol. 2nd edn. Version 2.0. November 2012.
23. Lambein K, Van de Vijver K, Faverly D et al. Belgian guidelines for laboratory handling and pathology reporting of breast carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy. Belg J. Med Oncol 2011;5:144-153.
24. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe (AGO) http://www.ago-online.de/de/fuermediziner/ leitlinien/mamma/en/ Accessed 30 October 2014.
25. NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). Pathology Reporting Of Breast Disease: A Joint Document Incorporating the Third Edition of the NHS Breast Screening Programme's Guidelines for Pathology Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening and the Second Edition of The Royal College of Pathologists' Minimum Dataset for Breast Cancer Histopathology. NHSBSP Publication No 58. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes jointly with The Royal College of Pathologists; 2005.
26. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Beoordeling na neoadjuvante chemo-of endocriene therapie http:// www.oncoline.nl/breastcancer 2012. Accessed 30 October 2014.
27. College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast. June 2012 http://www.cap.org/apps/ docs/committees/cancer/cancer-protocols/2012/BreastIn vasive-12protocol-3100.pdf Accessed 30 October 2014.
28. Leyland-Jones BR, Ambrosone CB, Bartlett J et al. Recommendations for collection and handling of specimens from Group breast cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5638-5644.
29. Provenzano E, Vallier AL, Champ R et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013;108:866-872.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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. October 2014 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Gui dances/UCM305501.pdf Accessed 30 October 2014.
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 atients is prognostic. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13: 685-691.
41. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1280-1291.
42. Sinn HP, Schmid H, Junkermann H et al. [Histologic regression of breast cancer after primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy]. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 1994;54:552-558.
43. 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.
44. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T et al. Sentinel-lymphnode biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): A prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:609-618.
45. 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] http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/ medcalc/index.cfm?pagename = jsconvert3 Accessed 30 October 2014
46. Ibarra JA. The value of combined large format histopathology technique to assess the surgically removed breast tissue following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A single institution study of 40 cases. Int J Breast Cancer 2012;2012:361707.
47. Carder P. Typing breast cancer following primary chemotherapy. Histopathology 1999;35:584-585.
48. Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, Raoelfils I et al. Changes and predictive and prognostic value of the mitotic index, Ki-67, cyclin D1, and cyclo-oxygenase-2 in 710 operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist 2008;13:1235-1245.
49. Diaz J, Stead L, Shapiro N et al. Mitotic counts in breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy and development of metastatic disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;138:91-97.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Belanger J, Soucy G, Sideris L et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer results in a lower axillary lymph node count. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:704-708.
53. Neuman H, Carey LA, Ollila DW et al. Axillary lymph node count is lower after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg 2006;191:827-829.
54. Boughey JC, Donohue JH, Jakub JW et al. Number of lymph nodes identified at axillary dissection: effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and other factors. Cancer 2010;116:3322-3329.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Polley MC, Leung S, McShane LM et al. An International Ki67 Reproducibility Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1897-1906.
64. 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.
65. 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).
66. 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/breast-cancer/ Accessed 30 October 2014.
67. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al. (eds) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual. 7th edn. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2009.
68. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. (eds) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual. 6th edn. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2002.
69. Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1137-1142.
70. Rabban JT, Glidden D, Kwan ML et al. Pure and predominantly pure intralymphatic breast carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: An unusual and adverse pattern of residual disease. Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33:256-263.
71. Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P et al. Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2007;18: 1632-1640.
72. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th edn. World Health Organization, 2012.
73. Loya A, Guray M, Hennessy BT et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy-induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009;115: 1605-1612.
74. Chen S, Chen CM, Yu KD et al. Prognostic value of a positive-to-negative change in hormone receptor status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:3002-3011.
75. Hirata T, Shimizu C, Yonemori K et al. Change in the hormone receptor status following administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on the longterm outcome in patients with primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1529-1536.
76. Tacca O, Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C et al. Changes in and prognostic value of hormone receptor status in a series of operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist 2007;12:636-643.
77. 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.
78. Jabbour MN, Massad CY, Boulos FI. Variability in hormone and growth factor receptor expression in primary versus recurrent, metastatic, and postneoadjuvant breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:29-37.
79. 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.
80. Valent A, Penault-Llorca F, Cayre A et al. Change in HER2 (ERBB2) gene status after taxane-based chemotherapy for breast cancer: polyploidization can lead to diagnostic pitfalls with potential impact for clinical management. Cancer Genet 2013;206: 37-41.
81. 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.