Is expert breast pathology assessment necessary for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ ?

Interobserver Variability in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

OBJECTIVES

Since most patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast are treated upon diagnosis, evidence on its natural progression to invasive carcinoma is limited. It is estimated that around half of the screen-detected DCIS lesions would have remained indolent if they had never been detected. Many patients with DCIS are therefore probably overtreated. Four ongoing randomized noninferiority trials explore active surveillance as a treatment option. Eligibility for these trials is mainly based on histopathologic features. Hence, the call for reproducible histopathologic assessment has never sounded louder.

METHODS

Here, the available classification systems for DCIS are discussed in depth.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review illustrates that histopathologic evaluation of DCIS is characterized by significant interobserver variability. Future digitalization of pathology, combined with development of deep learning algorithms or so-called artificial intelligence, may be an innovative solution to tackle this problem. However, implementation of digital pathology is not within reach for each laboratory worldwide. An alternative classification system could reduce the disagreement among histopathologists who use "conventional" light microscopy: the introduction of dichotomous histopathologic assessment is likely to increase interobserver concordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducible histopathologic assessment is a prerequisite for robust risk stratification and adequate clinical decision-making. Two-tier histopathologic assessment might enhance the quality of care.

Risk factors for estrogen receptor positive ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in African American women

Background

Compared to U.S. white women, African American women are more likely to die from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Elucidation of risk factors for DCIS in African American women may provide opportunities for risk reduction.

Methods

We used data from three epidemiologic studies in the African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Consortium to study risk factors for estrogen receptor (ER) positive DCIS (488 cases; 13,830 controls). Results were compared to associations observed for ER+ invasive breast cancer (n = 2,099).

Results

First degree family history of breast cancer was associated with increased risk of ER+ DCIS [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31, 2.17]. Oral contraceptive use within the past 10 years (vs. never) was also associated with increased risk (OR: 1.43, 95%CI: 1.03, 1.97), as was late age at first birth (≥25 years vs. <20 years) (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 0.96, 1.67). Risk was reduced in women with older age at menarche (≥15 years vs. <11 years) (OR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.42, 0.93) and higher body mass index (BMI) in early adulthood (≥25 vs. <20 kg/m² at age 18 or 21) (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.55, 1.01). There was a positive association of recent BMI with risk in postmenopausal women only. In general, associations of risk factors for ER+ DCIS were similar in magnitude and direction to those for invasive ER+ breast cancer.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that most risk factors for invasive ER+ breast cancer are also associated with increased risk of ER+ DCIS among African American women.

•

Few studies of risk factors for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have evaluated associations for African American women.

•

We analyzed data from the African American African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium.

•

Family history of breast cancer, reproductive factors, and anthropometric factors were associated with risk of ER+ DCIS.

•

In general, risk factor associations for ER+ DCIS were similar to those for ER+ invasive breast cancer.

•

Our findings support a common etiology and pathogenesis between ER+ DICS and ER+ invasive cancer in African American women.

Multigene Expression Assay and Benefit of Radiotherapy After Breast Conservation in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Background

Most women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will receive breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation (RT). RT can be omitted for women at low risk of local recurrence (LR). The Oncotype DX DCIS score (DS) predicts LR risk after BCS alone. This study assesses the impact of RT and DS on LR risk.

Methods

Population-based cohort analysis of individuals with DCIS treated by BCS ± RT from 1994-2003. Treatment and outcomes were determined by linkage and chart review. We used a propensity score-adjusted multivariable model to examine associations between DS and LR and evaluate the impact of RT. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

The cohort includes 571 individuals treated by BCS alone, 689 cases treated with BCS + RT. Median follow-up was 9.4 years. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with LR include RT, age at diagnosis, tumor size, and multifocality. Adjusting for these factors, the DS risk group was statistically significantly associated with LR risk (hazard ratio high/intermediate = 1.75, 95% confidence interval = 1.28 to 2.41, P < .001). Women with a low-risk DS treated by BCS alone had an LR risk of 10.6% at 10 years and a small benefit from RT, while those with a high DS had a higher risk of LR (25.4%) after BCS alone and greater benefit from RT. A subgroup of patients with favorable clinicopathological features had a high-risk DS; these patients had a higher than expected risk of LR after BCS alone and a greater benefit with RT.

Conclusions

The DS molecular assay improves risk stratification and estimates of RT benefit in individuals with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy.

Screening of Recurrence Related MicroRNA in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Functional Study of MicroRNA-654-5p

Purpose

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) contributes to 20%–30% of newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer in China. Although the breast cancer-specific mortality of DCIS is extremely low, a small proportion of DCIS patients still show relapse or metastasis, leading to poor prognosis. Little is known about the molecular mechanism for DCIS metastasis, partly due to the limited number of poor prognosis patients. This study analyzed the clinicopathological features and screened key microRNAs (miRNAs) contributing to local or distant recurrence.

Methods

The clinicopathological features of DCIS were evaluated and survival analysis were performed to clarify risk factors associated with poor prognosis. Using miRNA arrays and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) on DCIS formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded samples with or without microinvasion with different clinical outcomes, potential DCIS metastasis-related miRNAs were screened out and further validated. The influence of one identified miRNA, miRNA-654-5p, on DCIS progression was analyzed.

Results

Poor prognosis was significantly associated with larger tumor size and higher lymph node metastasis rate (both p < 0.05). Both were independent prognostic factors for DCIS. According to RT-qPCR results, distinct miRNA expression profiles were identified between DCIS and DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS-Mi) patients. In the DCIS panel, miRNA-654-5p was significantly upregulated in the patients with poor prognosis. In vitro, miRNA-654-5p promoted MDA-MB-231 cell mobility in healing tests and metastasis in the Transwell study.

Conclusion

The panel of high-risk miRNAs in DCIS and DCIS-Mi differs markedly. miRNA-654-5p is significantly upregulated DCIS patients having poor prognosis and may be essential for local and distant recurrence in DCIS.

Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

CONTEXT

Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies.

OBJECTIVE

To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors.

DESIGN

The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology.

RESULTS

The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Close or positive resection margins are not associated with an increased risk of chest wall recurrence in women with DCIS treated by mastectomy: a population-based analysis

Mastectomy is effective treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) but some women will develop chest wall recurrence. Most chest wall recurrences that develop after mastectomy are invasive cancer and are associated with poorer prognosis. Past studies have been unable to identify factors predictive of chest wall recurrence. Therefore, it remains unclear if a subset exists of women with DCIS treated by mastectomy experience a high rate of recurrence in whom more aggressive treatment may be of benefit. We report outcomes of all women in Ontario (N = 1,546) diagnosed with pure DCIS from 1994 to 2003 treated with mastectomy without radiotherapy and evaluate factors associated with the development of chest wall recurrence. Treatments and outcomes were validated by chart review. Proportional differences were compared using Chi square analyses. Survival analyses were used to study the development of chest wall recurrence in relation to patient and tumor characteristics. Median follow-up was 10.1 years. Median age was 57.1 years. 36 patients (2.3%) developed chest wall recurrence. The 10-year actuarial chest wall recurrence-free survival rates and invasive chest wall recurrence-free survival rates were 97.6 and 98.6%, respectively. There was no difference in cumulative 10 year rates of chest wall recurrence by age at diagnosis (<40 years = 5.2%, 40–44 years = 1.3%, 45–50 years = 2.9%, >50 years = 2.1%; p = 0.19), nuclear grade (high = 3.0%, intermediate = 1.4%, low = 1.0%, unreported = 2.5%; p = 0.41), or among women with close or positive resection margins (positive = 3.0%, 2 mm or less = 1.4%, >2 mm = 1.5%, unreported = 2.8%; p = 0.51). On univariate and multivariable analysis, none of the factors were significantly associated with the development of chest wall recurrence. In this population cohort, individuals treated by mastectomy experienced low rates of chest wall recurrence. We did not identify a subset of patients with a high rate of chest wall recurrence, including those with positive margins.

A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone

Validated biomarkers are needed to improve risk assessment and treatment decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. The Oncotype DX^® DCIS Score (DS) was shown to predict the risk of local recurrence (LR) in individuals with low-risk DCIS treated by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone. Our objective was to confirm these results in a larger population-based cohort of individuals. We used an established population-based cohort of individuals diagnosed with DCIS treated with BCS alone from 1994 to 2003 with validation of treatment and outcomes. Central pathology assessment excluded cases with invasive cancer, DCIS < 2 mm or positive margins. Cox model was used to determine the relationship between independent covariates, the DS (hazard ratio (HR)/50 C_p units (U)) and LR. Tumor blocks were collected for 828 patients. Final evaluable population includes 718 cases, of whom 571 had negative margins. Median follow-up was 9.6 years. 100 cases developed LR following BCS alone (DCIS, N = 44; invasive, N = 57). In the primary pre-specified analysis, the DS was associated with any LR (DCIS or invasive) in ER+ patients (HR 2.26; P < 0.001) and in all patients regardless of ER status (HR 2.15; P < 0.001). DCIS Score provided independent information on LR risk beyond clinical and pathologic variables including size, age, grade, necrosis, multifocality, and subtype (adjusted HR 1.68; P = 0.02). DCIS was associated with invasive LR (HR 1.78; P = 0.04) and DCIS LR (HR 2.43; P = 0.005). The DCIS Score independently predicts and quantifies individualized recurrence risk in a population of patients with pure DCIS treated by BCS alone.

Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens

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 < .001), and among pathologists who interpreted lower weekly case volumes (P < .001) or worked in smaller practices (P = .034) or nonacademic settings (P = .007).

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.

Multidisciplinary care of patients with early-stage breast cancer

There is a compelling need for close coordination and integration of multiple specialties in the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer. Optimal patient care and outcomes depend on the sequential and often simultaneous participation and dialogue between specialists in imaging, pathologic and molecular diagnostic and prognostic stratification, and the therapeutic specialties of surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. These are but a few of the various disciplines needed to provide modern, sophisticated management. The essential role for coordinated involvement of the entire health care team in optimal management of patients with early-stage breast cancer is likely to increase further.

Impact of Routine Pathology Review on Treatment for Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose

Routine secondary pathology review influences diagnosis and treatment among patients diagnosed with breast cancer. The impact of review on patients with node-negative breast cancer and the nature of the pathology elements leading to management changes are not well described.

Methods

Patients with node-negative, invasive, or in situ breast cancer and evaluable nodes referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency during two time periods between 2004 and 2007 were included. Pathologists with expertise in breast cancer reviewed the original reports and slides. Biomarker testing was not routinely repeated. Medical record review was conducted to determine whether original pathology was changed and whether recommended therapy was affected.

Results

Among 906 eligible patients, 405 (45%) received a pathology review. Univariate comparisons revealed that reviewed patients were younger (P < .001) and more likely to have close margins (P < .001), whereas other characteristics were similar. A total of 102 pathology changes were documented among 81 patients (20%). The most frequently changed elements were grade (40%) and lymphovascular (26%), nodal (15%), and margin (12%) status. These changes resulted in 27 treatment modifications among 25 patients (6%). Treatment changes were primarily related to nodal and margin status, and only two of 27 were related to measurement of tumor biology in women with estrogen receptor–positive, node-negative breast cancer.

Conclusion

Reported rates of change are significant and warrant routine secondary pathology review among patients with node-negative breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ before final treatment is recommended. Review remains relevant in the era of gene expression signatures to determine margin and nodal status.

Investigational Paradigms in Downscoring and Upscoring DCIS: Surgical Management Review

Counseling patients with DCIS in a rational manner can be extremely difficult when the range of treatment criteria results in diverse and confusing clinical recommendations. Surgeons need tools that quantify measurable prognostic factors to be used in conjunction with clinical experience for the complex decision-making process. Combination of statistically significant tumor recurrence predictors and lesion parameters obtained after initial excision suggests that patients with DCIS can be stratified into specific subsets allowing a scientifically based discussion. The goal is to choose the treatment regimen that will significantly benefit each patient group without subjecting the patients to unnecessary risks. Exploring the effectiveness of complete excision may offer a starting place in a new way of reasoning and conceiving surgical modalities in terms of "downscoring" or "upscoring" patient risk, perhaps changing clinical approach. Reexcison may lower the specific subsets' score and improve local recurrence-free survival also by revealing a larger tumor size, a higher nuclear grade, or an involved margin and so suggesting the best management. It seems, that the key could be identifying significant relapse predictive factors, according to validated risk investigation models, whose value is modifiable by the surgical approach which avails of different diagnostic and therapeutic potentials to be optimal. Certainly DCIS clinical question cannot have a single curative mode due to heterogeneity of pathological lesions and histologic classification.

Pathologic Diagnostic Correlation With Breast Imaging Findings: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 48 Institutions

Context.—Correlation of radiologic and pathologic findings is important for optimal management of patients with image-guided breast biopsies.

Objectives.—To (1) evaluate the rates of radiologic and pathologic correlation in breast needle core biopsies, (2) evaluate laboratory and radiology practices associated with greater correlation rates, and (3) determine the rates at which the lack of radiologic-pathologic correlation is documented in pathology reports.

Design.—The study was offered and conducted as a College of American Pathologists voluntary Q-Probes program. Participants in this study retrospectively reviewed 30 consecutive, initial, diagnostic needle core biopsy cases performed for abnormal radiologic findings. If 12 months of accessioned cases were reviewed without identifying 30 qualifying cases, participants stopped the retrospective review and included all cases identified. For each case or specimen, the participants provided detailed information about the radiologic and pathologic findings.

Results.—In aggregate, a radiologic-pathologic correlation was found in 94.9% (1328 of 1399) of the cases reviewed, based on the participants' judgments. Significant differences in the correlation rates existed when cases were discussed at an interdepartmental, multidisciplinary conference (P &lt; .001). No significant differences were found in the correlation rates of the following: whether surgeons or radiologists performed the biopsy, whether cores with calcifications were identified by any method, and whether the laboratory had one or more designated breast pathologists.

Conclusions.—Participation in a multidisciplinary breast conference is useful in radiologic-pathologic correlation. Active involvement by pathologists in correlating pathologic and radiologic findings is important.

Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?

In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by two radiologists was performed for 48 cases with microcalcification. The mammographic findings were correlated with the surgical histological results of benign non-atypical, ADH and carcinoma (DCIS or invasive) to identify features which were associated with a higher or lower odds ratio (OR) for malignancy. Underestimates for malignancy occurred in 14 of 29 cases with granular calcification form (OR 7.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-41) and 6 of 8 cases with segmental/linear branching distribution (OR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6-52). No malignancy was found at surgical excision in 16 cases with fine, rounded calcification. In conclusion, detailed assessment of calcification distribution and form gave helpful predictors for malignancy. Lesions with fine rounded calcification were always benign.

Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board

BACKGROUND

The treatment of breast cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, and patients are often referred to a multidisciplinary cancer clinic. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of this approach on the surgical management of breast cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of 149 consecutive patients referred to a multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic over a 1-year period with a diagnosis of breast cancer were reviewed retrospectively for alterations in radiologic, pathologic, surgical, and medical interpretations and the effect that these alterations had on recommendations for surgical management.

RESULTS

A review of the imaging studies resulted in changes in interpretations in 67 of the 149 patients studied (45%). This resulted in a change in surgical management in 11% of patients. Review of the pathology resulted in changes in the interpretation for 43 of the 149 patients (29%). Thirteen patients (9%) had surgical management changes made solely as a result of pathologic reinterpretation. In 51 patients (34%), a change in surgical management was recommended after discussion with the surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists that was not based on reinterpretation of the radiologic or pathologic findings. Overall, a second evaluation of patients referred to a multidisciplinary tumor board led to changes in the recommendations for surgical management in 77 of 149 of those patients studied (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

The changes in management stemmed from differences in mammographic interpretation, pathologic interpretation, and evaluation by medical and radiation oncologists and surgical breast specialists. Multidisciplinary review can provide patients with useful additional information when making difficult treatment decisions.

Evaluating the organization and delivery of breast cancer services: use of performance measures to identify knowledge gaps

OBJECTIVES

This paper identifies gaps in our knowledge about the quality of breast cancer care in Canada to understand where programs and resources are required to enhance health services and research capacity.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was employed involving a 15-member multidisciplinary panel of health professionals and two rounds of rating followed by deliberation to develop evidence- and consensus-based performance measures. A literature search for Canadian health services research in breast cancer was conducted based on the indicator topics. Eligible articles were identified in indexed databases of medical literature and funded research from 1995 to 2006.

RESULTS

The multidisciplinary panel selected 34 indicators spanning access to services, patient outcomes, diagnosis and staging, surgery, adjuvant therapy, pathology, and follow-up care. A total of 78 articles (66 quantitative; 12 exploratory) on these topics were reviewed. Apart from two aspects of care (communication of treatment options, supportive care), the yield of Canadian breast cancer health services research did not increase subsequent to a review conducted 10 years ago which recommended greater efforts in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

Research involving quantitative and qualitative methods is needed to increase our understanding about the organization and delivery of services for breast cancer diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care. Since it is unclear how to balance competing research demands, innovative strategies are required to assemble resources for health services research on breast cancer. This could include the promotion of partnerships between researchers and policy-makers across jurisdictions, and the pooling of resources between organizations, regions or networks.