Literature DB >> 27750105

Discordance in pathology report after central pathology review: Implications for breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

Laura Orlando1, Giuseppe Viale2, Emilio Bria3, Eufemia Stefania Lutrino4, Isabella Sperduti5, Luisa Carbognin3, Paola Schiavone4, Annamaria Quaranta4, Palma Fedele4, Chiara Caliolo4, Nicola Calvani4, Mario Criscuolo4, Saverio Cinieri4.   

Abstract

AIM: Pathological predictive factors are the most important markers when selecting early breast cancer adjuvant therapy. In randomized clinical trials the variability in pathology report after central pathology review is noteworthy. We evaluated the discordance rate (DR) and inter-rater agreement between local and central histopathological report and the clinical implication on treatment decision.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in a series of consecutive early breast cancer tumors diagnosed by local pathologists and subsequently reviewed at the Pathology Division of European Institute of Oncology. The inter-rater agreement (k) between local and central pathology was calculated for Ki-67, grading, hormone receptors (ER/PgR) and HER2/neu. The Bland-Altman plots were derived to determine discrepancies in Ki-67, ER and PgR. DR was calculated for ER/PgR and HER2.
RESULTS: From 2007 to 2013, 187 pathology specimens from 10 Cancer Centers were reviewed. Substantial agreement was observed for ER (k0.612; 95% CI, 0538-0.686), PgR (k0.659; 95% CI, 0580-0.737), Ki-67 (k0.609; 95% CI, 0.534-0.684) and grading (k0.669; 95% CI, 0.569-0.769). Moderate agreement was found for HER2 (k0.546; 95% CI, 0444-0.649). DR was 9.5% (negativity to positivity) and 31.7% (positivity to negativity) for HER2 and 26.2% (negativity to positivity) and 12.5% (positivity to negativity) for ER/PgR. According to changes in Her2 and ER/PgR status, 23 (12.2%) and 33 (17.6%) systemic prescription were respectively modified.
CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective analysis, central pathological review has a significant impact in the decision-making process in early breast cancer, as shown in clinical trials. Further studies are warranted to confirm these provocative results.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Early breast cancer; Pathology report

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27750105     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.09.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  14 in total

1.  A Root Cause Analysis Into the High Error Rate in Clinical Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2019-02-22

2.  [Expressions of MAP2K4 and estrogen receptor and their clinical significance in invasive breast cancer].

Authors:  Shu Liu; Yi-Yi Liu; Rong Li
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2016-04-20

3.  Effect of exosome biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  M Wang; S Ji; G Shao; J Zhang; K Zhao; Z Wang; A Wu
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  Intra- and peritumoral radiomics on assessment of breast cancer molecular subtypes based on mammography and MRI.

Authors:  Shuxian Niu; Wenyan Jiang; Nannan Zhao; Tao Jiang; Yue Dong; Yahong Luo; Tao Yu; Xiran Jiang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 4.553

5.  Comparison of immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR for assessing ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 and evaluating subtypes in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Lili Chen; Yanyang Chen; Zhongpeng Xie; Jiao Luo; Yuefeng Wang; Jianwen Zhou; Leilei Huang; Hongxia Li; Linhai Wang; Pei Liu; Man Shu; Wenhui Zhang; Zunfu Ke
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 4.624

6.  Comparison of Genomic Profiling Data with Clinical Parameters: Implications for Breast Cancer Prognosis.

Authors:  José A López-Ruiz; Jon A Mieza; Ignacio Zabalza; María D M Vivanco
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Physical basis of the 'magnification rule' for standardized Immunohistochemical scoring of HER2 in breast and gastric cancer.

Authors:  Andreas H Scheel; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Wedad Hanna; Gustavo Baretton; Peter Middel; Judith Burchhardt; Manfred Hofmann; Bharat Jasani; Josef Rüschoff
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.644

8.  Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping as a quantitative imaging biomarker for prediction of immunohistochemical receptor status, proliferation rate, and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Thomas H Helbich; Michelle Zhang; Elizabeth A Morris; Sunitha B Thakur; R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui; Doris Leithner; Maria A Marino; Pascal A Baltzer; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Katja Pinker
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Non-Invasive Assessment of Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics.

Authors:  Doris Leithner; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Sunitha B Thakur; Katja Pinker
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Metastatic behavior and overall survival according to breast cancer subtypes in stage IV inflammatory breast cancer.

Authors:  D J P van Uden; M C van Maaren; L J A Strobbe; P Bult; J J van der Hoeven; S Siesling; J H W de Wilt; C F J M Blanken-Peeters
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.