Pathology Considerations in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

A dedicated structured data set for reporting of invasive carcinoma of the breast in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

AIMS

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter-)national pathology and cancer organisations, is an initiative aimed at providing a unified international approach to reporting cancer. ICCR recently published new data sets for the reporting of invasive breast carcinoma, surgically removed lymph nodes for breast tumours and ductal carcinoma in situ, variants of lobular carcinoma in situ and low-grade lesions. The data set in this paper addresses the neoadjuvant setting. The aim is to promote high-quality, standardised reporting of tumour response and residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that can be used for subsequent management decisions for each patient.

METHODS

The ICCR convened expert panels of breast pathologists with a representative surgeon and oncologist to critically review and discuss current evidence. Feedback from the international public consultation was critical in the development of this data set.

RESULTS

The expert panel concluded that a dedicated data set was required for reporting of breast specimens post-neoadjuvant therapy with inclusion of data elements specific to the neoadjuvant setting as core or non-core elements. This data set proposes a practical approach for handling and reporting breast resection specimens following neoadjuvant therapy. The comments for each data element clarify terminology, discuss available evidence and highlight areas with limited evidence that need further study. This data set overlaps with, and should be used in conjunction with, the data sets for the reporting of invasive breast carcinoma and surgically removed lymph nodes from patients with breast tumours, as appropriate. Key issues specific to the neoadjuvant setting are included in this paper. The entire data set is freely available on the ICCR website.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality, standardised reporting of tumour response and residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment are critical for subsequent management decisions for each patient.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: Histologic Changes and Clinical Implications

Cytotoxic or endocrine therapy before surgery (neoadjuvant) for breast cancer has become standard of care, affording the opportunity to assess and quantify response in the subsequent resection specimen. Correlation with radiology, cassette mapping, and histologic review with a semi-quantitative reporting system such as residual cancer burden (RCB) provides important prognostic data that may guide further therapy. The tumor bed should be identified histologically, often as a collagenized zone devoid of normal breast epithelium, with increased vasculature. Identification of residual treated carcinoma may require careful high power examination, as residual tumor cells may be small and dyscohesive; features are widely variable and include hyperchromatic small, large, or multiple nuclei with clear, foamy, or eosinophilic cytoplasm. Calculation of RCB requires residual carcinoma span in 2 dimensions, estimated carcinoma cellularity (% area), number of involved lymph nodes, and span of largest nodal carcinoma. These RCB parameters may differ from AJCC staging measurements, which depend on only contiguous carcinoma in breast and lymph nodes.

Pathologic evaluation of specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: Current recommendations and challenges

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used to optimize breast conservation surgery and is becoming a standard of care in a subset of breast cancer patients. An accurate pathologic assessment is crucial in guiding clinical decisions and subsequent management and prognosis. This review aims to summarize the most current literature, recommendations, and challenges in the pathologic evaluation of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Included are the most current definitions of the different types of tumor response, the underlying factors that can affect tumor response, how to assess lymph nodes, margins, and tumor markers post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as well as the different classification systems a pathologist can use to assess residual disease. In this era of de-escalation of surgical treatment, studies on imaging techniques to assess residual disease and avoid surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have also been done. However, at least for now, surgical treatment remains the preferred practice. As such, pathologists play an increasingly critical role in standardizing assessment of residual disease post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and in optimizing the knowledge gained by this approach to breast cancer therapy.

Comparison of resection margin status after single or double radiopaque marker insertion for tumor localization in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Insertion of radiopaque markers is helpful for tumor localization in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the pathologic margin status in patients with single or double marker insertion.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 130 patients with marker insertion prior to NAC followed by BCS from January 2016 to September 2019. Under ultrasonography guidance, single or double markers were inserted to localize a tumor in the breast. The incidence of additional resection after frozen biopsy and re-excision after permanent pathologic diagnosis was analyzed.

RESULTS

In a total of 130 patients, 104 had a single marker in the center of the tumor and 26 had double markers at the periphery of the tumor before NAC. Among 69 patients with residual invasive tumors after NAC, there was no difference in the additional resection rate after frozen biopsy (single vs. double markers; 14.3% vs. 38.5%, P = .059) or the re-excision rate after final pathologic diagnosis (0% vs. 7.7%, P = .188). After propensity score matching for tumor size and subtypes, the two groups showed no differences in the additional resection rate after frozen biopsy (7.7% vs. 19.2%, P = .139) or the re-excision rate (0% vs. 3.8%, P = .308). After a median follow-up of 19 months (range 8-48 months), local recurrence-free survival did not differ between the two groups (log-rank P = .456).

CONCLUSIONS

Number of inserted markers for tumor localization did not affect the pathologic margin status after BCS.

Pathologic evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy drives treatment changes and improves long-term outcomes for breast cancer patients

Systemic therapy for breast cancer may be given before (neoadjuvant) or after (adjuvant) surgery. When neoadjuvant systemic therapy is given, response to treatment can be evaluated. However, some prognostic information (for example, pathologic tumor size pretreatment) is then lost and pathologic evaluation of breast specimens after neoadjuvant therapy is more difficult. Pathologic complete response (pCR), defined as no invasive disease in the breast (ypT0/is or ypT0) and no disease in all sampled lymph nodes (ypN0), identifies patients with a lower risk of recurrence or death compared to those with residual disease. Multidisciplinary collaboration, marking of the tumor site and any lymph node involvement pretreatment, and access to specimen imaging to facilitate correlation of gross and microscopic findings are critical for accurate determination of pCR. For HER2-positive and triple negative tumors requiring systemic therapy, giving the treatment before surgery identifies a high-risk group of patients that can receive additional adjuvant therapy after surgery if a pCR is not achieved. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that this approach reduced recurrence risk. More than ever, pathologic evaluation of response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy directs treatment received after surgery. Using a single standardized protocol for sampling of the post-neoadjuvant surgical specimen allows pathologists to ensure accurate determination of pCR or residual disease and quantify residual disease. Residual cancer burden (RCB) and AJCC stage provide complementary quantitative information about residual disease and prognosis.

PROBING BREAST CANCER THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES BY DNA CONTENT PROFILING

Background. Discrepancies in the interpretation of breast cancer therapeutic responses still exist mainly because of lack of standardized assessment criteria and methods. Objective. DNA content profiling of cells in the affected (cancerous) tissue before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was applied to facilitate interpretation of therapeutic responses. Methods. Both diagnostic biopsy and operation materials representing the tissue of primary tumors surgically removed after NAC were subjected to DNA image cytometry. Polyploidy and aneuploidy in DNA histograms were evaluated with a prognostic Auer typing. Stemline DNA index (DI) values and percentages of cells that polyploidize (>4.5C) were also determined. Immunofluorescence staining was applied to evaluate proliferation (Ki-67), invasiveness (CD44), and self-renewal factors characteristic for stem cells (SOX2 and NANOG). Results. DNA content profiles of 12 breast cancer cases, of which 7 were triple-negative, revealed the features of tumor non-responsiveness to NAC in 7 cases, of which 5 were triple-negative. Among non-responsive cases there were 3 cases that showed enhanced polyploidization, suggesting the negative NAC effect. Near-triploid (DI=1.26-1.74) triple-negative cases were determined as most resistant to NAC. Cycling near-triploid cells may contribute to the excessive numbers of >4.5C cells. Polyploid cells were positive for Ki-67, CD44, SOX2, and NANOG. Conclusions. DNA content profiling data provide additional helpful information for interpreting therapeutic responses in NAC-treated breast cancers. Polyploid tumor cells possessing stem cell features can be induced by NAC. Because NAC effects in some cases may be unfavorable, the use of the further treatment strategy should be carefully considered.

Processing and Reporting of Breast Specimens in the Neoadjuvant Setting

Standardization of quantification of residual disease in the breast and lymph nodes with routine pathologic macroscopic and microscopic evaluation leads to accurate and reproducible measures of response to neoadjuvant treatment. Multidisciplinary collaboration and correlation of clinical, imaging, gross and microscopic findings is essential. The processing approach to post-neoadjuvant breast cancer surgical specimens and the elements needed in the pathology report are the same regardless of breast cancer subtype or type of neoadjuvant treatment. The residual cancer burden incorporates response in the breast and in the lymph nodes into a score that can be combined with other emerging prognostic factors.