Kalnisha Naidoo1,2,3, David M Parham4, Sarah E Pinder1,3. 1. Department of Histopathology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. 2. Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Division of Cancer Studies, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 4. Department of Histopathology, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: The residual cancer burden score (RCB) is currently the preferred quantification tool for assessing residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer clinical trials. This has been shown to be highly reproducible at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre, where it was developed originally. We wanted to evaluate RCB in a UK context, where macroscopic handling of tissue may differ between sites. METHODS AND RESULTS: The pathology slides from 90 post-NACT patients from Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Bournemouth Hospital were reviewed independently by two specialist breast histopathologists who recalculated the RCB for each case. Data were collated and analysed statistically for interobserver reproducibility, for both numerical and categorical RCB. Overall, agreement between pathologists was 'good' [kappa = 0.775; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.668-0.882]. The overall concordance for continuous RCB score and for categorical RCB group was statistically significant (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.9497; 95% CI = 0.9235-0.9671; P < 0.0001 and Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.9145; 95% CI = 0.8712-0.9437; P < 0.0001, respectively). Discordance could not be attributed to any one component of the RCB calculation. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the RCB score is reproducible in a UK context. Further data comparing it to other quantification systems is required, however, before any superiority can be established.
AIMS: The residual cancer burden score (RCB) is currently the preferred quantification tool for assessing residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer clinical trials. This has been shown to be highly reproducible at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre, where it was developed originally. We wanted to evaluate RCB in a UK context, where macroscopic handling of tissue may differ between sites. METHODS AND RESULTS: The pathology slides from 90 post-NACTpatients from Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Bournemouth Hospital were reviewed independently by two specialist breast histopathologists who recalculated the RCB for each case. Data were collated and analysed statistically for interobserver reproducibility, for both numerical and categorical RCB. Overall, agreement between pathologists was 'good' [kappa = 0.775; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.668-0.882]. The overall concordance for continuous RCB score and for categorical RCB group was statistically significant (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.9497; 95% CI = 0.9235-0.9671; P < 0.0001 and Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.9145; 95% CI = 0.8712-0.9437; P < 0.0001, respectively). Discordance could not be attributed to any one component of the RCB calculation. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the RCB score is reproducible in a UK context. Further data comparing it to other quantification systems is required, however, before any superiority can be established.
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Caimiao Wei; Rebekah Gould; Xian Yu; Ya Zhang; Mei Liu; Andrew Walls; Alex Bousamra; Maheshwari Ramineni; Bruno Sinn; Kelly Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Vicente Valero; Aman U Buzdar; Wei Yang; Abenaa M Brewster; Stacy Moulder; Lajos Pusztai; Christos Hatzis; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeremy St John Thomas; Elena Provenzano; Louise Hiller; Janet Dunn; Clare Blenkinsop; Louise Grybowicz; Anne-Laure Vallier; Ioannis Gounaris; Jean Abraham; Luke Hughes-Davies; Karen McAdam; Stephen Chan; Rizvana Ahmad; Tamas Hickish; Stephen Houston; Daniel Rea; Carlos Caldas; John Ms Bartlett; David Allan Cameron; Richard Laurence Hayward; Helena Margaret Earl Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Christina Yau; Marie Osdoit; Marieke van der Noordaa; Sonal Shad; Jane Wei; Diane de Croze; Anne-Sophie Hamy; Marick Laé; Fabien Reyal; Gabe S Sonke; Tessa G Steenbruggen; Maartje van Seijen; Jelle Wesseling; Miguel Martín; Maria Del Monte-Millán; Sara López-Tarruella; Judy C Boughey; Matthew P Goetz; Tanya Hoskin; Rebekah Gould; Vicente Valero; Stephen B Edge; Jean E Abraham; John M S Bartlett; Carlos Caldas; Janet Dunn; Helena Earl; Larry Hayward; Louise Hiller; Elena Provenzano; Stephen-John Sammut; Jeremy S Thomas; David Cameron; Ashley Graham; Peter Hall; Lorna Mackintosh; Fang Fan; Andrew K Godwin; Kelsey Schwensen; Priyanka Sharma; Angela M DeMichele; Kimberly Cole; Lajos Pusztai; Mi-Ok Kim; Laura J van 't Veer; Laura J Esserman; W Fraser Symmans Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 54.433