Pathology Role in Adjuvant Setting

Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 151)

Histopathology provides relevant information on tumors and is generally considered to be the gold standard for diagnostics in oncology. In the last few decades much information on oncology has been gained and tumor characterization has been achieved by histology, including many more details than in former times. In association with this the classification and characterization of tumors have become more complex and therefore communication between clinicians and pathologists needs to be intensified. This becomes evident by the increased implementation of interdisciplinary tumor boards where pathologists take part as important players in a multidisciplinary team.


Sentinel Lymph Node Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Axillary Lymph Node Basal Cell Carcinoma Core Needle Biopsy 


  1. 1.
    Riedl CC, Pfarl G, Memarsadeghi M, et al. Lesion miss rates and false-negative rates for 1115 consecutive cases of stereotactically guided needle-localized open breast biopsy with long-term follow-up. Radiology. 2005;237:847–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, et al. Stereotaxic 14-gauge breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed? Radiology. 1994;192:793–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs TW, Siziopikou KP, Prioleau JE, et al. Do prognostic marker studies on core needle biopsy specimens of breast carcinoma accurately reflect the marker status of the tumor? Mod Pathol. 1998;11:259–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taucher S, Rudas M, Mader RM, et al. Prognostic markers in breast cancer: the reliability of HER2/neu status in core needle biopsy of 325 patients with primary breast cancer. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004;116:26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al Sarakbi W, Salhab M, Thomas V, et al. Is preoperative core biopsy accurate in determining the hormone receptor status in women with invasive breast cancer? Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2005;2:15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahill RA, Walsh D, Landers RJ, et al. Preoperative profiling of symptomatic breast cancer by diagnostic core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:45–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris GC, Denley HE, Pinder SE, et al. Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic excisions of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:11–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrade VP, Gobbi H. Accuracy of typing and grading invasive mammary carcinomas on core needle biopsy compared with the excisional specimen. Virchows Arch. 2004;445:597–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niemann TH, Lucas JG, Marsh WL Jr. To freeze or not to freeze. A comparison of methods for the handling of breast biopsies with no palpable abnormality. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106:225–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bianchi S, Palli D, Ciatto S, et al. Accuracy and reliability of frozen section diagnosis in a series of 672 nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:199–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fessia L, Ghiringhello B, Arisio R, et al. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in breast cancer detection. A review of 4436 biopsies and comparison with cytodiagnosis. Pathol Res Pract. 1984;179:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cserni G. Pitfalls in frozen section interpretation: a retrospective study of palpable breast tumors. Tumori. 1999;85:15–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noguchi M, Minami M, Earashi M, et al. Pathologic assessment of surgical margins on frozen and permanent sections in breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer. 1995;2:27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riegman PH, Dinjens WN, Oomen MH, et al. TuBaFrost 1: Uniting local frozen tumour banks into a European network: an overview. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:2678–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Tumors of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press, International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Acs G, Lawton TJ, Rebbeck TR, et al. Differential expression of E-cadherin in lobular and ductal neoplasms of the breast and its biologic and diagnostic implications. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:85–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Classification of malignant breast disease. In: Elston CW, Ellis IO, eds. The Breast. Systemic Pathology. Vol. 13, Oxford, UK Churchill Livingstone; 1998:243.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prasad ML, Osborne MP, Giri DD, et al. Microinvasive breast carcinoma: clinicopathologic analysis of a single institution experience. Cancer. 2000;88:1403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, et al. Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a definition supported by a long-term study of 1248 serially sectioned ductal carcinomas. Cancer. 2002;94:2134–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. UICC. 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham L, et al. Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer: An NSABP update. Cancer. 1983;52:1551–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilking N, Rutquist LE, Carstensen J, et al. Prognostic significance of axillary nodal status in primary breast cancer in relation to the number of resected nodes. Acta Oncol. 1992;31:29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petrik DW, McCready DR, Sawka CA, et al. Association between extent of axillary lymph node dissection and patient, tumor, surgeon, and hospital factors in patients with early breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2003;82:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reynolds JV, Mercer P, McDermot EWM, et al. Audit of complete axillary dissection in early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:148–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weir L, Speers C, D’yachkova Y, et al. Prognostic significance of the number of axillary lymph nodes removed in patients with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1793–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Intra M, Zurrida S, Maffini F, et al. Sentinel lymph node metastasis in microinvasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Discrepancies in current practice of pathological evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Results of a questionnaire based survey by the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:695–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Viale G, Sonzogni A, Pruneri G, et al. Histopathologic examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. J Surg Oncol. 2004;85:123–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Pathological work-up of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Review of current data to be considered for the formulation of guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1654–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Peruzzotti G, et al. Size of breast cancer metastases in axillary lymph nodes: clinical relevance of minimal lymph node involvement. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1379–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists from 12 countries in diagnosing breast disease and reporting prognostic features of carcinomas. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Virchows Arch. 1999;434:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Galea M, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee AH, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD, et al. Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:357–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Acs G, Dumoff KL, Solin LJ, et al. Extensive retraction artifact correlates with lymphatic invasion and nodal metastasis and predicts poor outcome in early stage breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:129–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Connolly JL. Changes and problematic areas in interpretation of the AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th ed. for breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:287–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C, et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:138–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer. Br J Cancer.1957;11:359–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Assessment of histological grade. In: Elston CW, Ellis IO, eds. The Breast. Systemic Pathology, 3rd ed. Vol. 13. Edinburgh, London, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto: Churchill Livingstone. 1998: 365–84.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer. 1994;73:2765–70.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Page DL, Ellis IO, Elston CW. Histologic grading of breast cancer. Let's do it. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:123–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:195–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:1067–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dalton LW, Pinder SE, Elston CE, et al. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement. Mod Pathol. 2000;13:730–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kinsel LB, Szabo E, Greene GL, et al. Immunocytochemical analysis of estrogen receptors as a predictor of prognosis in breast cancer patients: comparison with quantitative biochemical methods. Cancer Res. 1989;49:1052–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pertschuk LP, Kim DS, Nayer K, et al. Immunocytochemical estrogen and progestin receptor assays in breast cancer with monoclonal antibodies. Histopathologic, demographic, and biochemical correlations and relationship to endocrine response and survival. Cancer 1990;66:1663–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reiner A, Neumeister B, Spona J, et al. Immunocytochemical localization of estrogen and progesterone receptor and prognosis in human primary breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;50:7057–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blamey RW; EUSOMA. Guidelines on endocrine therapy of breast cancer EUSOMA. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:615–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1474–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Odish E, et al. Minimum formalin fixation time for consistent estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, et al. Immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen and progesterone receptors: correlation of standards achieved on in house tumours with that achieved on external quality assessment material in over 150 laboratories from 26 countries. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:292–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, et al. Study of interlaboratory reliability and reproducibility of estrogen and progesterone receptor assays in Europe. Documentation of poor reliability and identification of insufficient microwave antigen retrieval time as a major contributory element of unreliable assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:44–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Regitnig P, Reiner A, Dinges HP, et al. Quality assurance for detection of estrogen and progesterone receptors by immunohistochemistry in Austrian pathology laboratories. Virchows Arch. 2002;441:328–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Barnes DM, Millis RR, Beex LV, et al. Increased use of immunohistochemistry for oestrogen receptor measurement in mammary carcinoma: the need for quality assurance. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1677–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Leake R, Barnes D, Pinder S, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of steroid receptors in breast cancer: a working protocol. UK Receptor Group, UK NEQAS, The Scottish Breast Cancer Pathology Group, and The Receptor and Biomarker Study Group of the EORTC. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:634–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Owens MA, Horten BC, Da Silva MM. HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004;5:63–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ellis IO, Bartlett J, Dowsett M, et al. Best Practice No 176: Updated recommendations for HER2 testing in the UK. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:233–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chu WS, Furusato B, Wong K, et al. Ultrasound-accelerated formalin fixation of tissue improves morphology, antigen and mRNA preservation. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:850–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Press MF, Slamon DJ, Flom KJ, et al. Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3095–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rhodes A, Jasani B, Anderson E, et al. Evaluation of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical assay sensitivity and scoring on formalin-fixed and paraffin-processed cell lines and breast tumors: a comparative study involving results from laboratories in 21 countries. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:408–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rhodes A, Borthwick D, Sykes R, et al. The use of cell line standards to reduce HER-2/neu assay variation in multiple European cancer centers and the potential of automated image analysis to provide for more accurate cut points for predicting clinical response to trastuzumab. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:51–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing – National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:852–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bartlett JM, Going JJ, Mallon EA, et al. Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer. J Pathol. 2001;195:422–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Isola J, Tanner M, Forsyth A, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of HER-2 oncogene amplification as detected by chromogenic and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Cancer Res.2004;10:4793–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Barrett C, Magee H, O’Toole D, et al. Amplification of the HER-2 gene in breast cancers testing 2+ weak positive by HercepTestTM immunohistochemistry: false positive or false negative IHC? J Clin Pathol. 2006 Jul 5 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hsu CY, Ho DM, Yang CF, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Her-2/neu protein overexpression in invasive breast carcinoma using the DAKO HercepTest. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:693–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. January 31, 2002;415:530–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Glinsky GV, Higashiyama T, Glinskii AB. Classification of human breast cancer using gene expression profiling as a component of the survival predictor algorithm. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:2272–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ayers M, Symmans WF, Stec J, et al. Gene expression profiles predict complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2284–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chang JC, Wooten EC, Tsimelzon A, et al. Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Lancet. 2003;362:362–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cleator S, Tsimelzon A, Ashworth A, et al. Gene expression patterns for doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and cyclophosphamide (cytoxan) (AC) response and resistance. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95:229–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S, et al. Basal-like breast carcinomas: clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:729–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jacquemier J, Padovani L, Rabayrol L, et al. Typical medullary breast carcinomas have a basal/myoepithelial phenotype. J Pathol. 2005;207:260–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fulford LG, Reis-Filho JS, Ryder K, et al. Basal-like grade III invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: patterns of metastasis and long-term survival. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyDanube HospitalViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations