M Pölcher1, M Braun2, M Tischitz2, M Hamann2, N Szeterlak2, A Kriegmair2, C Brambs3, C Becker4, O Stoetzer5. 1. Department of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany. martin.poelcher@swmbrk.de. 2. Department of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany. 3. School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Pathology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Winthirstraße 11, 80639, Munich, Germany. 5. MVZ (Ambulatort Health Care Center) for Hematology and Oncology, Winthirstraße 11, 80639, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular profiling of breast cancer (BC) classifies several intrinsic subtypes based on different patterns of gene expression. Multigene assays estimate the risk of recurrence and help to select high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, these tests are associated with significant costs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) offers a surrogate classification for molecular subtypes by determining estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR), human epidermal growth factor (Her2neu), as well as the proliferation marker Ki67. Core needle biopsy (CNB) is well established in BC diagnosis and allows a pre-operative assessment of biomarkers. The aim of this study was to analyze the concordance of these markers between CNB and surgical specimens to assess whether re-testing of the surgical specimen is mandatory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within a 3-year period, patients with primary BC and paired samples of CNB and surgical specimens were analyzed retrospectively. Concordance rates of ER, PR, Her2neu, Ki67, and the surrogate classification for molecular subtypes were calculated using the Landis and Koch agreement grades. RESULTS: Out of 2254 patients with primary breast cancer, 1307 paired specimens without pre-operative treatment were available for analysis Concordance rates for ER, PR, Her2neu, and Ki67 status showed substantial-to-almost perfect agreement grades (κ = 0.91, 0.75, 0.89, and 0.61, respectively). Though substantial concordance was also found for the subtype classification (κ = 0.70), the molecular subtype changed in 18.5% of patients based on the testing of the surgical specimen, mainly from luminal A-like to luminal B-like. CONCLUSIONS: Though the concordance rates for single markers were convincing, a significant proportion of the molecular subtypes differed between CNB and the surgical specimen. Re-testing of PR and Ki67 is mandatory to ensure optimal treatment decisions. Further research is necessary to define safe, efficient, and cost-effective predictive models in adjuvant breast cancer therapy.
BACKGROUND: Molecular profiling of breast cancer (BC) classifies several intrinsic subtypes based on different patterns of gene expression. Multigene assays estimate the risk of recurrence and help to select high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, these tests are associated with significant costs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) offers a surrogate classification for molecular subtypes by determining estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR), humanepidermal growth factor (Her2neu), as well as the proliferation marker Ki67. Core needle biopsy (CNB) is well established in BC diagnosis and allows a pre-operative assessment of biomarkers. The aim of this study was to analyze the concordance of these markers between CNB and surgical specimens to assess whether re-testing of the surgical specimen is mandatory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within a 3-year period, patients with primary BC and paired samples of CNB and surgical specimens were analyzed retrospectively. Concordance rates of ER, PR, Her2neu, Ki67, and the surrogate classification for molecular subtypes were calculated using the Landis and Koch agreement grades. RESULTS: Out of 2254 patients with primary breast cancer, 1307 paired specimens without pre-operative treatment were available for analysis Concordance rates for ER, PR, Her2neu, and Ki67 status showed substantial-to-almost perfect agreement grades (κ = 0.91, 0.75, 0.89, and 0.61, respectively). Though substantial concordance was also found for the subtype classification (κ = 0.70), the molecular subtype changed in 18.5% of patients based on the testing of the surgical specimen, mainly from luminal A-like to luminal B-like. CONCLUSIONS: Though the concordance rates for single markers were convincing, a significant proportion of the molecular subtypes differed between CNB and the surgical specimen. Re-testing of PR and Ki67 is mandatory to ensure optimal treatment decisions. Further research is necessary to define safe, efficient, and cost-effective predictive models in adjuvant breast cancer therapy.
Authors: G Curigliano; H J Burstein; E P Winer; M Gnant; P Dubsky; S Loibl; M Colleoni; M M Regan; M Piccart-Gebhart; H-J Senn; B Thürlimann; F André; J Baselga; J Bergh; H Bonnefoi; S Y Brucker; F Cardoso; L Carey; E Ciruelos; J Cuzick; C Denkert; A Di Leo; B Ejlertsen; P Francis; V Galimberti; J Garber; B Gulluoglu; P Goodwin; N Harbeck; D F Hayes; C-S Huang; J Huober; H Khaled; J Jassem; Z Jiang; P Karlsson; M Morrow; R Orecchia; K C Osborne; O Pagani; A H Partridge; K Pritchard; J Ro; E J T Rutgers; F Sedlmayer; V Semiglazov; Z Shao; I Smith; M Toi; A Tutt; G Viale; T Watanabe; T J Whelan; B Xu Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shichao Li; Xinhua Yang; Yi Zhang; Linjun Fan; Fan Zhang; Li Chen; Yan Zhou; Xianchun Chen; Jun Jiang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Silvia Pineda; Christopher Wale; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Lila Zabaglo; Elizabeth Mallon; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Anthony Howell; Aman U Buzdar; John F Forbes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; Stephen K Chia; David Voduc; Dongxia Gao; Samuel Leung; Jacqueline Snider; Mark Watson; Sherri Davies; Philip S Bernard; Joel S Parker; Charles M Perou; Matthew J Ellis; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Balazs Acs; Samuel C Y Leung; Kelley M Kidwell; Indu Arun; Renaldas Augulis; Sunil S Badve; Yalai Bai; Anita L Bane; John M S Bartlett; Jane Bayani; Gilbert Bigras; Annika Blank; Henk Buikema; Martin C Chang; Robin L Dietz; Andrew Dodson; Susan Fineberg; Cornelia M Focke; Dongxia Gao; Allen M Gown; Carolina Gutierrez; Johan Hartman; Zuzana Kos; Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm; Arvydas Laurinavicius; Richard M Levenson; Rustin Mahboubi-Ardakani; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; C Kent Osborne; Frédérique M Penault-Llorca; Tammy Piper; Mary Anne Quintayo; Tilman T Rau; Stefan Reinhard; Stephanie Robertson; Roberto Salgado; Tomoharu Sugie; Bert van der Vegt; Giuseppe Viale; Lila A Zabaglo; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; David L Rimm Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 8.209