The role and assessment of morphological regression after neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Breast cancer neoadjuvant treatment response gives a unique opportunity to assess the therapy effectiveness only a few months after the therapy was initiated. In many neoadjuvant trials, patients achieving a pathologic complete response, showed a better long-term outcome, indicating pathologic complete response as a strong prognostic marker. However, there are some discrepancies in pathologic complete response assessment, thus standardization is needed. The review addresses the important issues regarding pathologic complete response assessment.

About the authors

G A Frank

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

д-р мед. наук, проф., акад. РАН, зав. каф. патологической анатомии ГБОУ ДПО РМАПО 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12

M E Ilatovskaia

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

канд. биол. наук, ассистент каф. патологической анатомии ГБОУ ДПО РМАПО 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12

Iu Iu Andreeva

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

д-р мед. наук, проф. каф. патологической анатомии ГБОУ ДПО РМАПО 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12

L E Zavalishina

Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: zavalishina1@mail.ru
д-р биол. наук, проф. каф. патологической анатомии ГБОУ ДПО РМАПО 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Polikarpova, d. 10/12

References

  1. Андреева Ю.Ю. и др. Методологические аспекты морфологической диагностики и оценки лечебного патоморфоза тройного негативного рака молочной железы. Фарматека. 2014; 4: 13-8.
  2. Андреева Ю.Ю. и др. Рак молочной железы. Практическое руководство для врачей. Под ред. Г.А.Франка, Л.Э.Завалишиной, К.М.Пожарисского. М.: Практическая медицина, 2014.
  3. Колядина И.В., Поддубная И.В. Современные возможности терапии HER2-положительного рака молочной железы (по материалам клинических исследований). Современная онкология. 2014; 4: 10-20.
  4. Лавникова Г.А. Гистологический метод количественной оценки терапевтического повреждения опухоли. М.: Методические рекомендации, 1979.
  5. Лушников Е.Ф., Абросимов А.Ю. Учение Я. Л. Рапопорта о патоморфозе: прошлое и настоящее. Арх. патологии. 2013; 4: 62-6.
  6. Семиглазов В.Ф., Семиглазов В.В. и др. Основные маркеры долгосрочной эффективности неоадъювантной терапии рака молочной железы (обзор литературы). Современная онкология. 2013; 4.
  7. Amat S et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 791-6.
  8. Amat S et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94 (3): 255- 63.
  9. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Atlas. 2nd Ed. 2012; p. 422-6.
  10. Bossuyt V 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; p. 1-12.
  11. Carey L.A et al. American joint committee on cancer tumor - node - metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (15): 1137-42.
  12. Cortazar P et al. Pathological complete response and long - term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384 (9938): 164-72.
  13. Fan F. Evaluation and Reporting of Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Open Pathol J 2009; 3 (2): 58-63.
  14. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval 2012.
  15. Gampenrieder S.P, Rinnerthaler G, Greil R. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Breast Cancer: Past, Present and Future. J Oncol 2013; 2013: 1-12.
  16. Gianni L et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): Follow - up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2- negative cohort. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15 (6): 640-7.
  17. Kaufmann M et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: New perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18 (12): 1927-34.
  18. Loya A et al. Prognostic significance of occult axillary lymph node metastases after chemotherapy - induced pathologic complete response of cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115 (8): 1605-12.
  19. Von Minckwitz G et al. Response - guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (29): 3623-30.
  20. Ogston K.N et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003; 12 (5): 320-7.
  21. Penault-Llorca F et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008; 39 (8): 1221-8.
  22. Pinder S.E et al. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007; 50 (4): 409-17.
  23. Provenzano E et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo - tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013; 108 (4): 866-72.
  24. Sahoo S, Dabbs D.J, Bhargava R. Pathology of Neoadjuvant Therapeutic Response of Breast Carcinoma. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2012; p. 519-33.
  25. Sataloff D.M et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180 (3): 297-306.
  26. Schneeweiss A et al. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab - and trastuzumab - based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16 (4): R73.
  27. Symmans W.F et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (28): 4414-22.

Copyright (c) 2015 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies