Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Original Article

Inter-observer agreement among pathologists in grading the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Authors: Takeshi Yamaguchi, Hirofumi Mukai, Futoshi Akiyama, Koji Arihiro, Shinobu Masuda, Masafumi Kurosumi, Yoshinori Kodama, Rie Horii, Hitoshi Tsuda

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The degree of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was correlated with the prognosis in breast cancer. There are few studies published on inter-observer variability in the assessment of pathological responses among pathologists.

Methods

We collected 64 surgically resected specimens from patients who had received NAC. Three pathologists assessed the pathological responses and classified them into 7 grades according to grading system of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society. The levels of concordance among pathologists were categorized into 3 classes: full concordance (all pathologists gave the same grade), partial concordance (two of them gave the same grade), and discordance (all three gave different grades). The inter-observer agreement among pathologists was estimated using the percentage concordance and Cohen’s kappa statistics.

Results

Full concordance, partial concordance, and discordance were seen in 28 (43%), 33 (52%), and 3 (5%) specimens, respectively. In most of partial concordance specimens (30 out of 33), the pathological response grades differed by only one level. The kappa value was 0.59. The concordance rate with regard to pCR was 97%.

Conclusions

Most of the judgments among pathologists differed within one level, but there is room for improving harmonization in the assessment of pathological responses.
Literature
1.
Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;2001:96–102.CrossRef
2.
Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):CD005002.
3.
Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mukai H, Arihiro K, Shimizu C, Masuda N, Miyagi Y, Yamaguchi T, et al. Stratifying the outcome after neoadjuvant treatment using pathological response classification by the Japanese Breast Cancer Society. Breast Cancer. 2016;23:73–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP, Chollet P, Hurteloup P. Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol. 1993;16:223–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:297–306.PubMed
7.
Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK, Smith I, et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003;12:320–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4414–22.CrossRefPubMed
9.
von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.CrossRef
10.
Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, Komoike Y, Mukai H, Nakamura S, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer. 2008;15:5–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E, Mastropasqua MG, Dell’Orto P, Rasmussen BB, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3846–52.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Collins LC, Marotti JD, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM. Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:218–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Nuyten DS, Wesseling J, van Tinteren H, Linn SC, van de Vijver MJ. 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. 2010;21:40–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB, Davidson NE, Martino S, Kaufman PA, et al. Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:855–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, Romond E, Hiller W, Park K, et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing—national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:852–4.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, Martino S, Kaufman PA, Lingle WL, et al. HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3032–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Umemura S, Yamamoto S, Kobayashi T, Osamura RY. HER2 testing on core needle biopsy specimens from primary breast cancers: interobserver reproducibility and concordance with surgically resected specimens. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2013;48:452–8.CrossRef
20.
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Peintinger F, Sinn B, Hatzis C, Albarracin C, Downs-Kelly E, Morkowski J, et al. Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:913–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T, Ibrahim NK, Valero V, Rosales MF, et al. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5983–92.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, Lee ES, Yokota I, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2147–59.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Inter-observer agreement among pathologists in grading the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer
Authors
Takeshi Yamaguchi
Hirofumi Mukai
Futoshi Akiyama
Koji Arihiro
Shinobu Masuda
Masafumi Kurosumi
Yoshinori Kodama
Rie Horii
Hitoshi Tsuda
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0799-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Breast Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue

Correction

Correction to: Phase I dose-finding study of eribulin and capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer: JBCRG-18 cape study

Original Article

Rainbow of KIBOU (ROK) study: a Breast Cancer Survivor Cohort in Japan

Original Article

Change in sonographic brightness can predict pathological response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Original Article

Objective assessment of reconstructed breast hardness using a durometer

Original Article

Impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy by ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy for patients with suspicious node positive breast cancer

Original Article

Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast, 20 years of experience in a single center with review of literature
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits