O Burgués1, Mª Á López-García2, B Pérez-Míes3, P Santiago4, B Vieites2, J F García5, V Peg6. 1. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain. burgues_oct@gva.es. 2. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain. 3. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 4. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Complejo Hospitalario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain. 5. Roche Farma S.A., Madrid, Spain. 6. Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the current international standards for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) protocols, and establish consensus recommendations by Spanish breast pathologists; and to look into the Spanish reality of defining pathological complete response in daily practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was used to gain consensus among a panel of 46 experts with regard to important issues about NAST specimens, with the objective of standardize handling and analysis of these breast cancer specimens. In addition, a survey was conducted among 174 pathologists to explore the Spanish reality of post-NAST breast cancer specimens handling. RESULTS: Our survey shows that pathologists in Spain follow the same guidelines as their international colleagues and face the same problems and controversies. Among the experts, 94.1% agreed on the recommendation for a pre-treatment evaluation with a core needle biopsy, and 100% of experts agreed on the need of having properly indicated information for the post-NAST surgical specimens. However, only 82.7% of them receive properly labelled specimens and even less receive specimens where markers are identified and the degree of clinical/radiological response is mentioned. Among participants 59.9% were familiar with the residual cancer burden system for post-NAST response quantification, but only 16.1% used it regularly. CONCLUSIONS: Active participation on breast cancer multidisciplinary teams, optimal usage of core needle biopsy for timely and standardized procedures for the diagnostic analysis, and accurate diagnosis of pathological complete response and complete evaluation of the response to NAST need to become the standard practice when handling breast cancer specimens in Spain.
PURPOSE: To compare the current international standards for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) protocols, and establish consensus recommendations by Spanish breast pathologists; and to look into the Spanish reality of defining pathological complete response in daily practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was used to gain consensus among a panel of 46 experts with regard to important issues about NAST specimens, with the objective of standardize handling and analysis of these breast cancer specimens. In addition, a survey was conducted among 174 pathologists to explore the Spanish reality of post-NAST breast cancer specimens handling. RESULTS: Our survey shows that pathologists in Spain follow the same guidelines as their international colleagues and face the same problems and controversies. Among the experts, 94.1% agreed on the recommendation for a pre-treatment evaluation with a core needle biopsy, and 100% of experts agreed on the need of having properly indicated information for the post-NAST surgical specimens. However, only 82.7% of them receive properly labelled specimens and even less receive specimens where markers are identified and the degree of clinical/radiological response is mentioned. Among participants 59.9% were familiar with the residual cancer burden system for post-NAST response quantification, but only 16.1% used it regularly. CONCLUSIONS: Active participation on breast cancer multidisciplinary teams, optimal usage of core needle biopsy for timely and standardized procedures for the diagnostic analysis, and accurate diagnosis of pathological complete response and complete evaluation of the response to NAST need to become the standard practice when handling breast cancer specimens in Spain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant treatment; Pathology; Recommendation
Authors: A Sheri; I E Smith; S R Johnston; R A'Hern; A Nerurkar; R L Jones; M Hills; S Detre; S E Pinder; W F Symmans; M Dowsett Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ivan R Diamond; Robert C Grant; Brian M Feldman; Paul B Pencharz; Simon C Ling; Aideen M Moore; Paul W Wales Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Wolfgang D Schmitt; Sibylle Loibl; Berit M Müller; Jens U Blohmer; Bruno V Sinn; Holger Eidtmann; Wolfgang Eiermann; Bernd Gerber; Hans Tesch; Jörn Hilfrich; Jens Huober; Tanja Fehm; Jana Barinoff; Thomas Rüdiger; Erhard Erbstoesser; Peter A Fasching; Thomas Karn; Volkmar Müller; Christian Jackisch; Carsten Denkert Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: John R Srigley; Tom McGowan; Andrea Maclean; Marilyn Raby; Jillian Ross; Sarah Kramer; Carol Sawka Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: E Provenzano; A-L Vallier; R Champ; K Walland; S Bowden; A Grier; N Fenwick; J Abraham; M Iddawela; C Caldas; L Hiller; J Dunn; H M Earl Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ramon Colomer; Cristina Saura; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; Tomás Pascual; Isabel T Rubio; Octavio Burgués; Lourdes Marcos; César A Rodríguez; Miguel Martín; Ana Lluch Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-02-01