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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Breast Oncology

Standardizing of Pathology in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Authors: Veerle Bossuyt, MD, W. Fraser Symmans, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for the treatment of breast cancer patients is increasing. Pathologic response in the form of pathologic complete response (pCR) and grading systems of partial response, such as the residual cancer burden (RCB) system, gives valuable prognostic information for patients and is used as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. The breast cancer and pathology communities are responding with efforts to standardize pathology in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this review, we summarize the challenges that postneoadjuvant systemic therapy surgical specimens pose and how pathologists and the multidisciplinary team can work together to optimize handling of these specimens. Multidisciplinary communication is essential. A single, standardized approach to macroscopic and microscopic pathologic examination makes it possible to provide reliable response information. This approach employs a map of tissue sections to correlate clinical, gross, microscopic, and imaging findings in order to report the presence of pCR (ypT0 ypN0 and ypT0/is ypN0) versus residual disease, the ypT and ypN stage using the current AJCC/UICC staging system, and the RCB.
Literature
1.
Esposito A, Criscitiello C, Curigliano G. Highlights from the 14(th) St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2015 in Vienna: dealing with classification, prognostication, and prediction refinement to personalize the treatment of patients with early breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience. 2015;9:518.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
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(5):778–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the EORTC trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(1):101–13.CrossRefPubMed
4.
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(9938):164–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Fiorentino C, Berruti A, Bottini A, et al. Accuracy of mammography and echography versus clinical palpation in the assessment of response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with operable disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;69(2):143–51.CrossRefPubMed
7.
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(2):257–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
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(7):1280–91.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Provenzano E, Bossuyt V, Viale G, et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. 2015;28(9):1185–201.
10.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, eds. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn. Springer; 2009.
11.
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(28):4414–22.CrossRefPubMed
12.
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(32):3960–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
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(7):609–18.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Caudle AS, Yang WT, Mittendorf EA, et al. Selective surgical localization of axillary lymph nodes containing metastases in patients with breast cancer: a prospective feasibility trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(2):137–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, et. al. College of American Pathologists Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. 2016.
16.
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(15):1956–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. (eds) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer staging manual. 6th ed. new York: Springer; 2002.
18.
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(7):1365–73.CrossRefPubMed
19.
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 (Edinb). 2003;12(5):320–7.CrossRef
20.
21.
Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-term prognostic value of residual cancer burden (RCB) classification following neoadjuvant chemotherapy [abstract S6-02]. Paper presented at: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 10–14 Dec 2013, 2013; San Antonio, TX.
22.
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(7):913–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Bossuyt V, Hatzis C. The neoadjuvant model and complete pathologic response in breast cancer: all or nothing? JAMA Oncol. 2016;27:10–15
24.
Berry DA. Right-sizing adjuvant and neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):3–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Broglio KR, Quintana M, Foster M, et al. Association of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer with long-term outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:751–60CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hatzis C, Symmans WF, Zhang Y, et al. Relationship between complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):26–33.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Liu MC, Symmans WF, Yau C, et al. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with veliparib/carboplatin in the I-SPY2 Trial. Abstract. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 2015.
Metadata
Title
Standardizing of Pathology in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Authors
Veerle Bossuyt, MD
W. Fraser Symmans, MD
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5317-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Impact that Timing of Genetic Mutation Diagnosis has on Surgical Decision Making and Outcome for BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers with Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Women with T4 Locally Advanced Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Oncological and Surgical Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Do Incisions Matter?

Breast Oncology

Editorial: Management Based on Risk: Individualizing the Care of the Breast Cancer Patient

Breast Oncology

Tweeting the Meeting: Twitter Use at The American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting 2013–2016

Breast Oncology

Early Adoption of the SSO-ASTRO Consensus Guidelines on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Stage I and II Invasive Breast Cancer: Initial Experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center