Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2022 | Breast Cancer | Review and Perspectives

Grading of invasive breast carcinoma: the way forward

Authors: C. van Dooijeweert, P. J. van Diest, I. O. Ellis

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Histologic grading has been a simple and inexpensive method to assess tumor behavior and prognosis of invasive breast cancer grading, thereby identifying patients at risk for adverse outcomes, who may be eligible for (neo)adjuvant therapies. Histologic grading needs to be performed accurately, on properly fixed specimens, and by adequately trained dedicated pathologists that take the time to diligently follow the protocol methodology. In this paper, we review the history of histologic grading, describe the basics of grading, review prognostic value and reproducibility issues, compare performance of grading to gene expression profiles, and discuss how to move forward to improve reproducibility of grading by training, feedback and artificial intelligence algorithms, and special stains to better recognize mitoses. We conclude that histologic grading, when adequately carried out, remains to be of important prognostic value in breast cancer patients.

Sistrunk WE, MacCarty WC (1922) Life expectancy following radical amputation for carcinoma of the breast: a clinical and pathologic study of 218 cases. Ann Surg 75(1):61–69PubMedPubMedCentral

Greenough RB (1925) Varying degrees of malignancy in cancer of the breast. Can Res 9(4):453–463

Wolff B (1966) Histological grading in carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 20(1):36–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1966.5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bloom HJ, Richardson WW (1957) Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer: a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 11(3):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1957.43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19(5):403–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.xCrossRefPubMed

Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP et al (2017) De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol 28(8):1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH et al (2008) Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 26(19):3153–3158. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5986CrossRefPubMed

Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F et al (2010) Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res 12(4):207. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2607CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boiesen P, Bendahl PO, Anagnostaki L et al (2000) Histologic grading in breast cancer--reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group. Acta Oncol 39(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/028418600430950CrossRefPubMed

10.

Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM et al (1995) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: Should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology 27(3):219–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1995.tb00213.xCrossRefPubMed

11.

Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L et al (1999) Applying the Nottingham prognostic index to a Swedish breast cancer population. South East Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat 53(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006052115874CrossRefPubMed

12.

Theissig F, Kunze KD, Haroske G et al (1990) Histological grading of breast cancer. Interobserver, reproducibility and prognostic significance. Pathol Res Pract 186(6):732–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0344-0338(11)80263-3CrossRefPubMed

13.

Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE et al (1992) The Nottingham prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 22(3):207–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01840834CrossRefPubMed

14.

Phung MT, Tin Tin S, Elwood JM (2019) Prognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 19(1):230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Clark GM (1994) Do we really need prognostic factors for breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 30(2):117–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00666054CrossRefPubMed

16.

Frkovic-Grazio S and Bracko M (2002) Long term prognostic value of Nottingham histological grade and its components in early (pT1N0M0) breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 55(2):88-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.55.2.88 [Right doi not to be found in PubMed at this moment]

17.

Anttinen J, Kautiainen H, Kuopio T (2006) Role of mammography screening as a predictor of survival in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 94(1):147–151. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602895CrossRefPubMed

18.

Shen Y, Yang Y, Inoue LY et al (2005) Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(16):1195–1203. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji239CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hanrahan EO, Valero V, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hortobagyi GN et al (2006) Prognosis and management of patients with node-negative invasive breast carcinoma that is 1 cm or smaller in size (stage 1; T1a, bN0M0): a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 24(13):2113–2122. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.8035CrossRefPubMed

20.

van Dooijeweert C, Baas IO, Deckers IAG, et al (2021) The increasing importance of histologic grading in tailoring adjuvant systemic therapy in 30,843 breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06098-7

21.

Kollias J, Murphy CA, Elston CW et al (1999) The prognosis of small primary breast cancers. Eur J Cancer 35(6):908–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00056-8CrossRefPubMed

22.

Saimura M, Fukutomi T, Tsuda H et al (1999) Prognosis of a series of 763 consecutive node-negative invasive breast cancer patients without adjuvant therapy: analysis of clinicopathological prognostic factor. J Surg Oncol 71(2):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(199906)71:2%3c101::aid-jso8%3e3.0.co;2-g

23.

Lundin J, Lundin M, Holli K et al (2001) Omission of histologic grading from clinical decision making may result in overuse of adjuvant therapies in breast cancer: results from a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 19(1):28–36. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.28CrossRefPubMed

24.

Simpson JF, Gray R, Dressler LG et al (2000) Prognostic value of histologic grade and proliferative activity in axillary node-positive breast cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Companion Study, EST 4189. J Clin Oncol 18(10):2059–2069. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.10.2059CrossRefPubMed

25.

Anderson TJ, Alexander FE, Lamb J et al (2000) Pathology characteristics that optimize outcome prediction of a breast screening trial. Br J Cancer 83(4):487–492. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Warwick J, Tabàr L, Vitak B et al (2004) Time-dependent effects on survival in breast carcinoma: results of 20 years of follow-up from the Swedish two-county study. Cancer 100(7):1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20140CrossRefPubMed

27.

Blamey RW, Hornmark-Stenstam B, Ball G et al (2010) ONCOPOOL - a European database for 16,944 cases of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 46(1):56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.09.009CrossRefPubMed

28.

Mirza AN, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G et al (2002) Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years. Ann Surg 235(1):10–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200201000-00003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman S et al (1991) Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer 68(10):2142–2149. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19911115)68:10%3c2142::aid-cncr2820681010%3e3.0.co;2-d

30.

Reed W, Hannisdal E, Boehler PJ et al (2000) The prognostic value of p53 and c-erb B-2 immunostaining is overrated for patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in 613 patients with a follow-up of 14–30 years. Cancer 88(4):804–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000215)88:4%3c804::aid-cncr11%3e3.0.co;2-y

31.

Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al (2008) Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 10(4):R65. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Luo J et al (2008) Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(19):1380–1388. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn309CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al (2008) Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 14(16):5158–5165. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4756CrossRefPubMed

34.

Genestie C, Zafrani B, Asselain B et al (1998) Comparison of the prognostic value of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson and Nottingham histological grades in a series of 825 cases of breast cancer: major importance of the mitotic count as a component of both grading systems. Anticancer Res 18(1b):571–576PubMed

35.

Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S et al (1989) Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 64(9):1914–1921. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19891101)64:9%3c1914::aid-cncr2820640926%3e3.0.co;2-g

36.

Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Voorhorst FJ et al (2005) Prospective multicenter validation of the independent prognostic value of the mitotic activity index in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients younger than 55 years. J Clin Oncol 23(25):5993–6001. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.511CrossRefPubMed

37.

Andre F, Ismaila N, Henry NL et al (2019) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update-integration of results from TAILORx. J Clin Oncol 37(22):1956–1964. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.00945CrossRefPubMed

38.

Henry NL, Somerfield MR, Abramson VG et al (2016) Role of patient and disease factors in adjuvant systemic therapy decision making for early-stage, operable breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Endorsement of Cancer Care Ontario Guideline Recommendations. J Clin Oncol 34(19):2303–2311. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.8609CrossRefPubMed

39.

Henry NL, Somerfield MR, Abramson VG et al (2019) Role of patient and disease factors in adjuvant systemic therapy decision making for early-stage, operable breast cancer: update of the ASCO endorsement of the Cancer Care Ontario Guideline. J Clin Oncol 37(22):1965–1977. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.00948CrossRefPubMed

40.

Goetz MP, Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO (2019) NCCN Guidelines Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 3.2018. 2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17(2):118–126. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0009CrossRefPubMed

41.

Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2019) Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol 30(8):1194–1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173CrossRefPubMed

42.

(NICE) N.I.f.H.a.C.E. NICE guideline [NG101]- Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and management. 18 July 2018 Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng101

43.

Cambridge Breast Unit (2021) U.o.C.D.o.O.a.t.U.s.E.C.I.a.R.C.E. Predict breast cancer. Available from: https://breast.predict.nhs.uk/

44.

Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Loibl S et al (2019) Estimating the benefits of therapy for early stage breast cancer: the St Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019. Ann Oncol 30(10):1541–1557. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz235CrossRefPubMed

45.

Elston CW (1984) The assessment of histological differentiation in breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg 54(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1984.tb06677.xCrossRefPubMed

46.

Davis BW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A et al (1986) Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 58(12):2662–2670. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19861215)58:12%3c2662::aid-cncr2820581219%3e3.0.co;2-y

47.

Hopton DS, Thorogood J, Clayden AD et al (1989) Observer variation in histological grading of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 15(1):21–23PubMed

48.

Balslev I, Axelsson CK, Zedeler K et al (1994) The Nottingham prognostic index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Breast Cancer Res Treat 32(3):281–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00666005CrossRefPubMed

49.

Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy. Health Technol Assess 10(34):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–204. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta10340

50.

Thomas JS, Kerr GR, Jack WJ et al (2009) Histological grading of invasive breast carcinoma–a simplification of existing methods in a large conservation series with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 55(6):724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03429.xCrossRefPubMed

51.

Puig-Vives M, Sánchez MJ, Sánchez-Cantalejo J et al (2013) Distribution and prognosis of molecular breast cancer subtypes defined by immunohistochemical biomarkers in a Spanish population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 130(3):609–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.039CrossRefPubMed

52.

Seneviratne S, Lawrenson R, Scott N et al (2015) Breast cancer biology and ethnic disparities in breast cancer mortality in New Zealand: a cohort study. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0123523. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123523CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Sun J, Chen C, Wei W et al (2015) Associations and indications of Ki67 expression with clinicopathological parameters and molecular subtypes in invasive breast cancer: a population-based study. Oncol Lett 10(3):1741–1748. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3461CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Møller H, Henson K, Lüchtenborg M (2016) Short-term breast cancer survival in relation to ethnicity, stage, grade and receptor status: national cohort study in England. Br J Cancer 115(11):1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM et al (2019) Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of invasive breast cancer: a nationwide study of 33,043 patients in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Baas IO, et al (2020) Variation in breast cancer grading: the effect of creating awareness through laboratory-specific and pathologist-specific feedback reports in 16 734 patients with breast cancer. J Clin Pathol jclinpath-2019-206362. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206362

57.

Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N (1995) Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 26(8):873–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/0046-8177(95)90010-1CrossRefPubMed

58.

Frierson HF Jr, Wolber RA, Berean KW et al (1995) Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 103(2):195–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/103.2.195CrossRefPubMed

59.

Jacquemier J and Charpin C (1998) [Reproducibility of histoprognostic grades of invasive breast cancer]. Ann Pathol 18(5):385-90. Article in French

60.

Sikka M, Agarwal S, Bhatia A (1999) Interobserver agreement of the Nottingham histologic grading scheme for infiltrating duct carcinoma breast. Indian J Cancer 36(2–4):149–153PubMed

61.

Page DL, Gray R, Allred DC et al (2001) Prediction of node-negative breast cancer outcome by histologic grading and S-phase analysis by flow cytometry: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (2192). Am J Clin Oncol 24(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-200102000-00002CrossRefPubMed

62.

Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C et al (2005) Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 18(8):1067–1078. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800388CrossRefPubMed

63.

Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD et al (2006) Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: a statistical modeling approach. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 28(4):213–218PubMed

64.

Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, Bane AL et al (2006) Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol 19(2):195–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800496CrossRefPubMed

65.

Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C et al (2006) Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J Clin Pathol 59(2):138–145. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2004.025551CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Nuyten DS, Wesseling J et al (2010) The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol 21(1):40–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp273CrossRefPubMed

67.

Postma EL, Verkooijen HM, van Diest PJ et al (2013) Discrepancy between routine and expert pathologists’ assessment of non-palpable breast cancer and its impact on locoregional and systemic treatment. Eur J Pharmacol 717(1–3):31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2012.12.033

68.

Rabe K, Snir OL, Bossuyt V et al (2019) Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences. Hum Pathol 94:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2019.09.006CrossRefPubMed

69.

Ginter PS, Idress R, D’Alfonso TM, et al (2020) Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a multi-institution study of interobserver variation using virtual microscopy. Mod Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-00698-2

70.

van Dooijeweert C, Deckers IAG, de Ruiter EJ et al (2020) The effect of an e-learning module on grading variation of (pre)malignant breast lesions. Mod Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-0556-6CrossRefPubMed

71.

Focke CM, Decker T, van Diest PJ (2016) Intratumoral heterogeneity of Ki67 expression in early breast cancers exceeds variability between individual tumours. Histopathology 69(5):849–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13007CrossRefPubMed

72.

Focke CM, van Diest PJ, Decker T (2016) St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers: impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res Treat 159(2):257–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3950-5CrossRefPubMed

73.

Focke CM, Bürger H, van Diest PJ et al (2017) Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 84:219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.041CrossRefPubMed

74.

Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N (2017) Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology 49(2):166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2016.11.006CrossRefPubMed

75.

van Steenhoven JEC, Kuijer A, Kornegoor R et al (2020) Assessment of tumour proliferation by use of the mitotic activity index, and Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 expression, in early-stage luminal breast cancer. Histopathology 77(4):579–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S et al (2011) Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(32):4273–4278. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.2835CrossRefPubMed

77.

Natrajan R, Lambros MB, Geyer FC et al (2009) Loss of 16q in high grade breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor status: evidence for progression in tumors with a luminal phenotype? Genes Chromosomes Cancer 48(4):351–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.20646CrossRefPubMed

78.

Yu K, Lee CH, Tan PH et al (2004) A molecular signature of the Nottingham prognostic index in breast cancer. Cancer Res 64(9):2962–2968. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-2430CrossRefPubMed

79.

Lu X, Lu X, Wang ZC et al (2008) Predicting features of breast cancer with gene expression patterns. Breast Cancer Res Treat 108(2):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9596-6CrossRefPubMed

80.

Groenendijk FH, Jager A, Cardoso F et al (2018) A nationwide registry-based cohort study of the MammaPrint genomic risk classifier in invasive breast cancer. Breast 38:125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.12.015CrossRefPubMed

81.

Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041588CrossRefPubMed

82.

Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Reis-Filho JS (2010) The contribution of gene expression profiling to breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction: a retrospective of the last decade. J Pathol 220(2):263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.2648CrossRefPubMed

83.

Dunkler D, Michiels S, Schemper M (2007) Gene expression profiling: does it add predictive accuracy to clinical characteristics in cancer prognosis? Eur J Cancer 43(4):745–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.11.018CrossRefPubMed

84.

Edén P, Ritz C, Rose C et al (2004) “Good Old” clinical markers have similar power in breast cancer prognosis as microarray gene expression profilers. Eur J Cancer 40(12):1837–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.02.025

85.

Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al (2016) 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. New England J Med 375(8):717–729. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602253CrossRef

86.

Jasem J, Amini A, Rabinovitch R et al (2016) 21-gene recurrence score assay as a predictor of adjuvant chemotherapy administration for early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of use, therapeutic implications, and disparity profile. J Clin Oncol 34(17):1995–2002. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.0887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

87.

Orucevic A, Heidel RE, Bell JL (2016) Utilization and impact of 21-gene recurrence score assay for breast cancer in clinical practice across the United States: lessons learned from the 2010 to 2012 National Cancer Data Base analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157(3):427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3833-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

88.

Roberts MC, Kurian AW, Petkov VI (2019) Uptake of the 21-gene assay among women with node-positive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17(6):662–668. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.7266CrossRefPubMed

89.

Davis BA, Aminawung JA, Abu-Khalaf MM et al (2017) Racial and ethnic disparities in oncotype DX test receipt in a statewide population-based study. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15(3):346–354. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2017.0034CrossRefPubMed

90.

Konecny G, Pauletti G, Pegram M, et al Quantitative association between HER-2/neu and steroid hormone receptors in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer. (0027–8874 (Print)). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.2.142

91.

Press DJ, Ibraheem A, Dolan ME, Goss KH et al (2018) Racial disparities in omission of oncotype DX but no racial disparities in chemotherapy receipt following completed oncotype DX test results. Breast Cancer Res Treat 168(1):207–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4587-8CrossRefPubMed

92.

Weldon CB, Trosman JR, Gradishar WJ et al (2012) Barriers to the use of personalized medicine in breast cancer. Journal of Oncology Practice 8(4):e24–e31. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000448CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

93.

Ricks-Santi LJ, McDonald JT (2017) Low utility of oncotype DX(R) in the clinic. Cancer Med 6(3):501–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.837CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

94.

Zhang L, Hsieh MC, Petkov V et al (2020) Trend and survival benefit of oncotype DX use among female hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients in 17 SEER registries, 2004–2015. Breast Cancer Res Treat 180(2):491–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05557-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

95.

Allison KH, Kandalaft PL, Sitlani CM et al (2012) Routine pathologic parameters can predict oncotype DXTM recurrence scores in subsets of ER positive patients: who does not always need testing? Breast Cancer Res Treat 131(2):413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1416-3CrossRefPubMed

96.

Huang JL, Kizy S, Marmor S et al (2018) Tumor grade and progesterone receptor status predict 21-gene recurrence score in early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 172(3):671–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4955-zCrossRefPubMed

97.

Orucevic A, Bell JL, King M et al (2019) Nomogram update based on TAILORx clinical trial results - oncotype DX breast cancer recurrence score can be predicted using clinicopathologic data. Breast 46:116–125CrossRef

98.

McNabb AP, Heidel RE, Orucevic A, et al (2019) Breast 46:116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.05.006

99.

Wu SG, Zhang WW, Wang J et al (2019) Progesterone receptor status and tumor grade predict the 21-gene recurrence score of invasive lobular breast cancer. Biomark Med 13(12):1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm-2019-0209CrossRefPubMed

100.

Yoo SH, Kim TY, Kim M, et al (2019) Development of a nomogram to predict the recurrence score of 21-gene prediction assay in hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2019.07.010

101.

Gyanchandani R, Lin Y, Lin HM et al (2016) Intratumor heterogeneity affects gene expression profile test prognostic risk stratification in early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 22(21):5362–5369. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2889CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

102.

EhteshamiBejnordi B, Veta M, Johannes van Diest P et al (2017) Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA 318(22):2199–2210. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14585CrossRef

103.

Veta M, Heng YJ, Stathonikos N et al (2019) Predicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: The TUPAC16 challenge. Med Image Anal 54:111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2019.02.012CrossRefPubMed

104.

Veta M, van Diest PJ, Jiwa M et al (2016) Mitosis counting in breast cancer: object-level interobserver agreement and comparison to an automatic method. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0161286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Grading of invasive breast carcinoma: the way forward
Authors: C. van Dooijeweert
P. J. van Diest
I. O. Ellis
Publication date: 01-01-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Published in: Virchows Archiv / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03141-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Grading of invasive breast carcinoma: the way forward

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Spindle cell lesions of the breast: a diagnostic approach

Is Real-Time Microscopy on the Horizon? A Brief Review of the Potential Future Directions in Clinical Breast Tumor Microscopy Implementation

Incorporation of TILs in daily breast cancer care: how much evidence can we bear?

Triple-negative breast carcinomas of low malignant potential: review on diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses

Fibroepithelial tumours of the breast—a review

Artificial intelligence applied to breast pathology