background The likelihood of distant recurrence in patients with breast cancer who have no involved lymph nodes and estrogen-receptor–positive tumors is poorly defined by clinical and histopathological measures. methods We tested whether the results of a reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay of 21 prospectively selected genes in paraffin-embedded tumor tissue would correlate with the likelihood of distant recurrence in patients with node-negative, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer who were enrolled in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trial B-14. The levels of expression of 16 cancerrelated genes and 5 reference genes were used in a prospectively defined algorithm to calculate a recurrence score and to determine a risk group (low, intermediate, or high) for each patient. results Adequate RT-PCR profiles were obtained in 668 of 675 tumor blocks. The proportions of patients categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high risk by the RT-PCR assay were 51, 22, and 27 percent, respectively. The Kaplan–Meier estimates of the rates of distant recurrence at 10 years in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 6.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4.0 to 9.6), 14.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 8.3 to 20.3), and 30.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 23.6 to 37.4). The rate in the low-risk group was significantly lower than that in the high-risk group (P<0.001). In a multivariate Cox model, the recurrence score provided significant predictive power that was independent of age and tumor size (P<0.001). The recurrence score was also predictive of overall survival (P<0.001) and could be used as a continuous function to predict distant recurrence in individual patients. conclusions The recurrence score has been validated as quantifying the likelihood of distant recurrence in tamoxifen-treated patients with node-negative, estrogen-receptor–positive breast cancer.

/pdf/a-multigene-assay-to-predict-recurrence-of-tamoxifen-treated-4h4k5a3uno.pdf

A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. Results Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. Recommendations The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly...

/pdf/american-society-of-clinical-oncology-college-of-american-5b47o39c65.pdf

American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer

Purpose To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

/pdf/american-society-of-clinical-oncology-college-of-american-33ect3oz8r.pdf

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer

• Purpose.-To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. Methods.-The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. Results.-Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. Recommendations.-The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than 6 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or a FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer.

Background: Histologic grade in breast cancer provides clinically important prognostic information. However, 30% – 60% of tumors are classifi ed as histologic grade 2. This grade is associated with an intermediate risk of recurrence and is thus not informative for clinical decision making. We examined whether histologic grade was associated with gene expression profi les of breast cancers and whether such profi les could be used to improve histologic grading. Methods: We analyzed microarray data from 189 invasive breast carcinomas and from three published gene expression datasets from breast carcinomas. We identifi ed differentially expressed genes in a training set of 64 estrogen receptor (ER) – positive tumor samples by comparing expression profi les between histologic grade 3 tumors and histologic grade 1 tumors and used the expression of these genes to defi ne the gene expression grade index. Data from 597 independent tumors were used to evaluate the association between relapse-free survival and the gene expression grade index in a Kaplan – Meier analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We identifi ed 97 genes in our training set that were associated with histologic grade; most of these genes were involved in cell cycle regulation and proliferation. In validation datasets, the gene expression grade index was strongly associated with histologic grade 1 and 3 status; however, among histologic grade 2 tumors, the index spanned the values for histologic grade 1 – 3 tumors. Among patients with histologic grade 2 tumors, a high gene expression grade index was associated with a higher risk of recurrence than a low gene expression grade index (hazard ratio = 3.61, 95% confi dence interval = 2.25 to 5.78; P <.001, log-rank test). Conclusions: Gene expression grade index appeared to reclassify patients with histologic grade 2 tumors into two groups with high versus low risks of recurrence. This approach may improve the accuracy of tumor grading and thus its prognostic value. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:262 – 72]

/pdf/gene-expression-profiling-in-breast-cancer-understanding-the-1izy54qkcj.pdf

Gene Expression Profiling in Breast Cancer: Understanding the Molecular Basis of Histologic Grade To Improve Prognosis

BACKGROUND Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.

https://www.hormonebalance.org/images/documents/Page%2099%20Prognostic%20factors%20in%20BCa%20Concensus%20Statement.pdf

Allred Dc

Papers

Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.