Surgical upstaging rates in patients meeting the eligibility for active surveillance trials.
TL;DR: The upstaging rate in patients eligible for the clinical active surveillance trials was 12-25% as discussed by the authors, and the risk factors among patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were evaluated.
Abstract: Purpose Four clinical active surveillance trials including LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, are being conducted to assess whether women with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ can safely avoid surgery. The present study aimed to determine the rate of upstaging to invasive cancer among patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and to evaluate the incidence of upstaging in patients meeting the eligibility criteria for four active surveillance clinical trials. Methods The present study initially enrolled 180 patients with 183 calcifications who received the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ by biopsy. Patients were classified as eligible for four clinical trials according to the respective inclusion criteria. Results In total, 152 patients with 155 calcifications were analyzed. Of these, 32 (21%) were upstaged to invasive disease based on the final pathological analysis of surgical specimens. Of the 152 patients, 53 (35%), 90 (59%), 24 (16%) and 34 (22%) met the eligibility criteria for the LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA trial, respectively. Among patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, 10 (19%), 14 (16%), 6 (25%) and 4 (12%) patients were upstaged to invasive disease in LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, respectively. The upstaging to pT1b or higher rates were 2% (1/53), 3% (3/90), 0% (0/24) and 3% (1/34) in LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, respectively. Conclusions The upstaging rate in patients eligible for the clinical active surveillance trials was 12-25%. Although the rate of upstaging to pT1b or higher was low, further studies are required to determine the rates of upstaging to invasive cancer and the risk factors among patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Evaluate ADH/DCIS as a spectrum of intraductal neoplastic disease (risk and histomorphology); examine the controversies of distinguishing ADH vs. DCIS and the grading of DCIS; review the upgrading for both ADH and DCIS with emphasis on the variation of methods of detection and the definitions of upgrading; and evaluate the impact of all these variables on the AS trials.
Abstract: Simple Summary Overtreatment which means providing a patient with unnecessary medical intervention has recently become the center of attention in breast diseases. One of these lesions is low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), for which the standard of treatment is wide local excision/mastectomy, with or without radiation therapy, with or without hormonal therapy. There are many worldwide ongoing clinical trials aiming to de-escalate this therapy by examining whether active surveillance (AS) is sufficient. These trials vary in pathology inclusion and exclusion criteria. There is lack of consensus on the definition of low-risk DCIS, in particular the overlap with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), DCIS grading, and lack of definition of comedonecrosis. This review discusses AS trial from pathology standpoint and provides few recommendations. Abstract Intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplasia is a spectrum of disease that varies from atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), low-grade (LG), intermediate-grade (IG), to high-grade (HG) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). While ADH has the lowest prognostic significance, HG-DCIS carries the highest risk. Due to widely used screening mammography, the number of intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplastic lesions has increased. The consequence of this practice is the increase in the number of patients who are overdiagnosed and, therefore, overtreated. The active surveillance (AS) trials are initiated to separate lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely monitored and only be treated when they develop a change in the clinical/radiologic characteristics. At the same time, the natural history of these lesions can be evaluated. This review aims to evaluate ADH/DCIS as a spectrum of intraductal neoplastic disease (risk and histomorphology); examine the controversies of distinguishing ADH vs. DCIS and the grading of DCIS; review the upgrading for both ADH and DCIS with emphasis on the variation of methods of detection and the definitions of upgrading; and evaluate the impact of all these variables on the AS trials.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this article , three molecular biomarkers have been studied to better estimate local recurrence risk after BCS, including Oncotype DX DCIS score, DCISionRT Decision Score and its associated residual risk subtypes.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), especially in the era of mammographic screening, is a commonly diagnosed breast tumor. Despite the low breast cancer mortality risk, management with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) is the prevailing treatment approach in order to reduce the risk of local recurrence (LR), including invasive LR, which carries a subsequent risk of breast cancer mortality. However, reliable and accurate individual risk prediction remains elusive and RT continues to be standardly recommended for most women with DCIS. Three molecular biomarkers have been studied to better estimate LR risk after BCS—Oncotype DX DCIS score, DCISionRT Decision Score and its associated Residual Risk subtypes, and Oncotype 21-gene Recurrence Score. All these molecular biomarkers represent important efforts towards improving predicted risk of LR after BCS. To prove clinical utility, these biomarkers require careful predictive modeling with calibration and external validation, and evidence of benefit to patients; on this front, further research is needed. Most trials do not incorporate molecular biomarkers in evaluating de-escalation of therapy for DCIS; however, one—the Prospective Evaluation of Breast-Conserving Surgery Alone in Low-Risk DCIS (ELISA) trial—incorporates the Oncotype DX DCIS score in defining a low-risk population and is an important next step in this line of research.
1 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors discuss the available evidence regarding the feasibility and limitations of active surveillance for ADH and DCIS, as well as recent advances in patient risk stratification.
Abstract:
Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are relatively common breast lesions on the same spectrum of disease. Atypical ductal hyperblasia is a nonmalignant, high-risk lesion, and DCIS is a noninvasive malignancy. While a benefit of screening mammography is early cancer detection, it also leads to increased biopsy diagnosis of noninvasive lesions. Previously, treatment guidelines for both entities included surgical excision because of the risk of upgrade to invasive cancer after surgery and risk of progression to invasive cancer for DCIS. However, this universal management approach is not optimal for all patients because most lesions are not upgraded after surgery. Furthermore, some DCIS lesions do not progress to clinically significant invasive cancer. Overtreatment of high-risk lesions and DCIS is considered a burden on patients and clinicians and is a strain on the health care system. Extensive research has identified many potential histologic, clinical, and imaging factors that may predict ADH and DCIS upgrade and thereby help clinicians select which patients should undergo surgery and which may be appropriate for active surveillance (AS) with imaging. Additionally, multiple clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate whether AS for DCIS is feasible for a select group of patients. Recent advances in MRI, artificial intelligence, and molecular markers may also have an important role to play in stratifying patients and delineating best management guidelines. This review article discusses the available evidence regarding the feasibility and limitations of AS for ADH and DCIS, as well as recent advances in patient risk stratification.
TL;DR: De-escalation is the philosophy that treatment for this disease should be differentiated based on the likelihood of future progression and recurrence, but unfortunately, all patients receive similar treatment recommendations independent of the disease variability as discussed by the authors .
References
More filters
TL;DR: A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed and strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored.
Abstract: 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...
4,560 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, University of Rochester3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, National Institutes of Health5, Stanford University6, Washington University in St. Louis7, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research8, University of Sydney9, St. Jude Medical Center10, University of Toronto11, Mayo Clinic12, American Society of Clinical Oncology13, University of Southern California14, North Carolina State University15, Indiana University16, University of Milan17, University of Michigan18
TL;DR: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive).
Abstract: Purpose.—To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in b...
2,817 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, Stanford University3, American Society of Clinical Oncology4, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research5, University of Sydney6, University of Nottingham7, St. Jude Medical Center8, University of Toronto9, Mayo Clinic10, University of Southern California11, Indiana University12, National Institutes of Health13, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust14
TL;DR: The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays.
Abstract: Purpose To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. Recommendations Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended work-up for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥ 2.0; average HER2 copy number < 4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results. Find additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .
1,100 citations
University of Washington1, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center2, Oregon Health & Science University3, University of Vermont4, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice5, Dartmouth College6, Providence Health & Services7, Stanford University8, Harvard University9, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center10, University of Toronto11
TL;DR: In this study of pathologists, in which diagnostic interpretation was based on a single breast biopsy slide, overall agreement between the individual pathologists' interpretations and the expert consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 75.3%, with the highest level of concordance for invasive carcinoma and lower levels of concords for DCIS and atypia.
Abstract: Importance A breast pathology diagnosis provides the basis for clinical treatment and management decisions; however, its accuracy is inadequately understood. Objectives To quantify the magnitude of diagnostic disagreement among pathologists compared with a consensus panel reference diagnosis and to evaluate associated patient and pathologist characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants Study of pathologists who interpret breast biopsies in clinical practices in 8 US states. Exposures Participants independently interpreted slides between November 2011 and May 2014 from test sets of 60 breast biopsies (240 total cases, 1 slide per case), including 23 cases of invasive breast cancer, 73 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 72 with atypical hyperplasia (atypia), and 72 benign cases without atypia. Participants were blinded to the interpretations of other study pathologists and consensus panel members. Among the 3 consensus panel members, unanimous agreement of their independent diagnoses was 75%, and concordance with the consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 90.3%. Main Outcomes and Measures The proportions of diagnoses overinterpreted and underinterpreted relative to the consensus-derived reference diagnoses were assessed. Results Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented to participate. Of these, 91% (N = 115) completed the study, providing 6900 individual case diagnoses. Compared with the consensus-derived reference diagnosis, the overall concordance rate of diagnostic interpretations of participating pathologists was 75.3% (95% CI, 73.4%-77.0%; 5194 of 6900 interpretations). Among invasive carcinoma cases (663 interpretations), 96% (95% CI, 94%-97%) were concordant, and 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%) were underinterpreted; among DCIS cases (2097 interpretations), 84% (95% CI, 82%-86%) were concordant, 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) were overinterpreted, and 13% (95% CI, 12%-15%) were underinterpreted; among atypia cases (2070 interpretations), 48% (95% CI, 44%-52%) were concordant, 17% (95% CI, 15%-21%) were overinterpreted, and 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) were underinterpreted; and among benign cases without atypia (2070 interpretations), 87% (95% CI, 85%-89%) were concordant and 13% (95% CI, 11%-15%) were overinterpreted. Disagreement with the reference diagnosis was statistically significantly higher among biopsies from women with higher (n = 122) vs lower (n = 118) breast density on prior mammograms (overall concordance rate, 73% [95% CI, 71%-75%] for higher vs 77% [95% CI, 75%-80%] for lower,P Conclusions and Relevance In this study of pathologists, in which diagnostic interpretation was based on a single breast biopsy slide, overall agreement between the individual pathologists’ interpretations and the expert consensus–derived reference diagnoses was 75.3%, with the highest level of concordance for invasive carcinoma and lower levels of concordance for DCIS and atypia. Further research is needed to understand the relationship of these findings with patient management.
517 citations
TL;DR: About one in four DCIS diagnoses at CNB represent understaged invasive breast cancer, and preoperative variables significantly associated with understaging include biopsy device and guidance method, size, grade, mammographic features, and palpability.
Abstract: This meta-analysis comprehensively addresses the issue of underestimation of invasive breast cancer and its predictors in the setting of diagnoses of ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy, providing a pooled random effects estimate of underestimation (25.9%; 95% confidence interval: 22.5%, 29.5%).
307 citations