Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reporting Excised Cancer Specimens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Pathology in Clinical Practice

Part of the book series: In Clinical Practice ((ICP))

  • 461 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the final step in reporting the case after examining the sections, interpreting the results of the microscopic examination and making the final diagnosis upon which the post-operative management of the patient will depend. This will include confirming the diagnosis made on core biopsy, in DCIS deciding whether or not the excised specimen contain foci of micro- or true invasive carcinoma, deciding whether the tumour is completely excised or not, the presence or absence of lymph-vascular invasion and the state of the lymph nodes if these have been provided. Changes resulting from the administration of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy are presented and illustrated. The chapter also discusses multifocality, pseudo invasion and how to reach the correct diagnosis in some lesions which may resemble each other. Lastly the recent TNM classification is presented in details.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 27.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Pathology reporting in breast cancer screening. 2nd ed. NHSBSP Publication No. 3; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Youngson BJ, Liberman L, Rosen PP. Displacement of carcinomatous epithelium in surgical breast specimens following stereotaxic core biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:598–602.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baqai T, Shousha S. Oestrogen receptor negativity as a marker for high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Histopathology. 2003;42:440–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liberman L, Vuolo M, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, LaTrnta LR, Polini NM, Rosen PP. Epithelial displacement after stereotactic 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR. 1999;172:677–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diaz LK, Wiley EL, Venta LA. Are malignant cells displaced by large-gauge needle core biopsy of the breast? AJR. 1999;173:1303–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jimenez RE, Bongers S, Bouwman D, Segel M, Visscher DW. Clinicopathologic significance of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies with invasive cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:123–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liberman L, Zakowski M, Avery S, Hudis C, Morris EA, Abramson AF, LaTrenta LR, Glassman JR, Dershaw DD. Complete percutaneous excision of infiltrating carcinoma at stereotactic breast biopsy: how can tumor size be assessed? AJR. 1999;173:1315–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA, Nowels KW. Percutaneous removal of benign mammographic lesions: comparison of automated large-core and directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy techniques. AJR. 1998;171:1325–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fine RE, Israel PZ, Walker LC, Corgan KR, Greenwald LV, Berenson JE, Boyd BA, Oliver MK, McClure T, Elberfeld J. A prospective study of the removal rate of imaged breast lesions by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy probe system. Am J Surg. 2001;182:335–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yiangou C, Shousha S, Sinnett HD. Primary tumour characteristics and axillary lymph node status in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999;80:1974–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Galea M, O’Rouke S, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. III. Vascular invasion: relationship with recurrence and survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1994;24:41–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Afaseven B, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, et al. Impact of multifocal or multicentric disease on surgery and locoregional, distant and overall survival of 6,134 breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1118–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lynch SP, Lei X, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Multifocality and multicentricity in breast cancer and survival outcome. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:3063–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Salgado R, Aftimos P, Sotiriou C, et al. Evolving paradigm in multifocal breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;31:111–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi Y, Kim EJ, Seol H, et al. The hormone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and molecular subtype status of individual tumor foci in multifocal/multicentric invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Hum Pathol. 2012;43:48–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: how much is enough. Cancer. 2018;124:1335–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gwin JL, Eisenberg BL, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, Boraas M, Solin LJ. Incidence of gross and microscopic carcinoma in specimens from patients with breast cancer after re-excision lumpectomy. Ann Surg. 1993;218:729–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Abraham SC, Fox K, Fraker D, Solin L, Reynolds C. Sampling of grossly benign breast reexcisions. A multidisciplinary approach to assessing adequacey. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23:316–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldstein NS, Kestin L, Vicini F. Factors associated with ipsilateral breast failure and distant metastases in patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:500–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher BJ, Perera FE, Cooke AL, Opeitum A, Dar AR, Venkatesan VM, Stitt L, Radwan JS. Extracapsular axillary node extension in patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy: an indication for radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38:551–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lyman GH, Tamin S, Edge SB, Newman LA, Turner RR, Weaver DI, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early stage breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1365–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fellgara G, Carcangiu ML, Rosai J. Benign epithelial inclusions in axillary lymph nodes: report of 18 cases and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1123–33.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Corben AD, Nehhozina T, Garg K, Vellejo CE, Brogi E. Endosalpingiosis in axillary lymph nodes: a possible pitfall in the staging of patients with breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1211–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Derks MGM, van de Velde CJH. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: more than just downsizing. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:2–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, et al. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;120:559–67.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gentile LF, Plitas G, Zabor EC, et al. Tumor biology predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients presenting with locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3896–902.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Earl H, Ellis IO. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology. 2007;50:409–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rauch GM, Kuerer HM, Adrada B, Santiago L, Moseley T, Candelaria RP. Biopsy feasibility trial for breast cancer pathologic complete response detection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: imaging assessment and correlation endpoints. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1953–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamy A-S, Lam G-T, Lass E, et al. Lymphovascular invasion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is strongly associated with poor prognosis in breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:295–304.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arens N, Bleyl U, Hildenbrand R. HER2/neu, p53, ki67, and hormone receptors do not change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Virchows Arch. 2005;446:489–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4414–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1049–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dominci LS, Morgan Gonzalez VM, Buzdar AU. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent Trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:2884–9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Newman LA, Pernick NL. Histopathologic evidence of tumor regression in the axillary lymph nodes of patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy correlates with breast cancer outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:734–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lancaster J, Armstrong A, Howell S, et al. Impact of oncotype DX breast recurrence score testing on adjuvant chemotherapy use in early breast cancer: real world experience in Greater Manchester, UK. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:931–7.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R, et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:6012–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4273–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gage MM, Mylander WC, Rosman M, Fujii T, Le Du F, Raghavendra A, et al. Combined pathologic-genomic algorithm for early-stage breast cancer improves cost-effective use of the 21-gene recurrence score assay. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1280–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lester SC, Rose S, Chen Y-Y, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1515–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, D’Orsi C, et al. Breast. In: Amin MB, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. p. 589–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3_48.

  42. Giuliano AF, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC Cancer staging manual: breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1783–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wolff A, Hammond M, Hicks D, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee SB, Sohn G, Kim J, et al. A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:257–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Sami Shousha

Authors
  1. Sami Shousha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sami Shousha .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shousha, S. (2020). Reporting Excised Cancer Specimens. In: Breast Pathology in Clinical Practice. In Clinical Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42386-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42386-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42385-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42386-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation