Aswin Shanmugalingam1, Kerry Hitos1,2, Shrenik Hegde1, Ali Al-Mashat1, Nirmala Pathmanathan1,3, Senarath Edirimmane4,5,2,6, T Michael Hughes5,7,6, Nicholas K Ngui8,9,10,11,12. 1. Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. 2. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. 5. Northern Surgical Oncology, Sydney, Australia. 6. Sydney Adventist Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 7. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 8. Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. nicholas.ngui@health.nsw.gov.au. 9. Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. nicholas.ngui@health.nsw.gov.au. 10. Northern Surgical Oncology, Sydney, Australia. nicholas.ngui@health.nsw.gov.au. 11. Sydney Adventist Hospital, Sydney, Australia. nicholas.ngui@health.nsw.gov.au. 12. Department of Surgery, Blacktown and Mount Druitt Hospitals, 75 Railway St, Mount Druitt, Sydney, NSW, 2770, Australia. nicholas.ngui@health.nsw.gov.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Histopathological biomarkers guide breast cancer management. Testing histopathological biomarkers on both core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical excision (SE) in patients who are treated with upfront surgery is unnecessary and costly if there is high concordance between the two. This study investigated the concordance between CNB and SE for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER2), tumor grade and Ki-67. METHODS: Histopathological biomarker information were retrospectively collected from preoperative CNB and SE on patients diagnosed with breast cancer through the BreastScreen Sydney West program over a four-year period between January 2017 and December 2020. Data were then analyzed to calculate percentage of agreement and concordance using kappa values for ER, PR, HER2, tumor grade and Ki-67. RESULTS: A total of 504 cases of invasive breast cancers were analyzed. There was substantial level of concordance for ER 96.7% (κ = 0.687) and PR 93.2% (κ = 0.69). Concordance for HER2 negative (IHC 0, IHC 1 +) or positive (IHC 3 +) tumor on CNB was 100% (κ = 1.00). Grade and Ki-67 showed moderate level of concordance, 72.6% (κ = 0.545) and 70.5% (κ = 0.453), respectively. CONCLUSION: ER, PR and HER2 show high level of concordance. CNB is reliable in determining histopathological biomarkers for ER, PR positive and HER2 positive or negative tumors indicating that retesting these on SE may not be necessary.
PURPOSE: Histopathological biomarkers guide breast cancer management. Testing histopathological biomarkers on both core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical excision (SE) in patients who are treated with upfront surgery is unnecessary and costly if there is high concordance between the two. This study investigated the concordance between CNB and SE for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER2), tumor grade and Ki-67. METHODS: Histopathological biomarker information were retrospectively collected from preoperative CNB and SE on patients diagnosed with breast cancer through the BreastScreen Sydney West program over a four-year period between January 2017 and December 2020. Data were then analyzed to calculate percentage of agreement and concordance using kappa values for ER, PR, HER2, tumor grade and Ki-67. RESULTS: A total of 504 cases of invasive breast cancers were analyzed. There was substantial level of concordance for ER 96.7% (κ = 0.687) and PR 93.2% (κ = 0.69). Concordance for HER2 negative (IHC 0, IHC 1 +) or positive (IHC 3 +) tumor on CNB was 100% (κ = 1.00). Grade and Ki-67 showed moderate level of concordance, 72.6% (κ = 0.545) and 70.5% (κ = 0.453), respectively. CONCLUSION: ER, PR and HER2 show high level of concordance. CNB is reliable in determining histopathological biomarkers for ER, PR positive and HER2 positive or negative tumors indicating that retesting these on SE may not be necessary.
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Antonio C Wolff; Pamela B Mangu; Sarah Temin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A Makris; T J Powles; D C Allred; S E Ashley; P A Trott; M G Ormerod; J C Titley; M Dowsett Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: So Yeon Park; Ku Sang Kim; Taek-Gu Lee; Sung-Shin Park; Sun Mi Kim; Wonshik Han; Dong-Young Noh; Sung-Won Kim Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: A M Sofie Berghuis; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Hendrik Koffijberg; Leon W M M Terstappen; Stefan Sleijfer; Maarten J IJzerman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kiho You; Sungmin Park; Jai Min Ryu; Isaac Kim; Se Kyung Lee; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Samuel C Y Leung; David L Rimm; Andrew Dodson; Balazs Acs; Sunil Badve; Carsten Denkert; Matthew J Ellis; Susan Fineberg; Margaret Flowers; Hans H Kreipe; Anne-Vibeke Laenkholm; Hongchao Pan; Frédérique M Penault-Llorca; Mei-Yin Polley; Roberto Salgado; Ian E Smith; Tomoharu Sugie; John M S Bartlett; Lisa M McShane; Mitch Dowsett; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506