Interpreting Breast Pathology in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy



Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) was originally used as a standard treatment for inflammatory and inoperable locally advanced breast cancers. Diagnosis was typically made by fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB). Therefore, pathologic information about the carcinoma (e.g., type, grade, and tumor markers) and information for staging (e.g., size and lymph node status) was limited. The combination of image-guided core needle biopsy of breast cancers, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), or needle biopsy of lymph nodes, and new breast imaging modalities have substantially increased the ability to accurately classify and stage carcinomas prior to surgical excision. Currently, increasing numbers of women are being treated with chemotherapy or hormonal agents prior to surgery for earlier-stage operable breast cancers. Although clinical trials have shown that systemic treatment before or after surgery gives identical results in locoregional control and metastasis-free survival for patients), major advantages for NAT are that the efficacy of systemic therapy can be assessed during the treatment of patients (with the opportunity to change therapy if a cancer does not respond); tumor response is a major prognostic factor; tumor response can be used as a short-term endpoint for clinical trials; pre and posttreatment tumor samples with known treatment susceptibility are powerful research tools; and more women become eligible for breast conservation. This chapter reviews the special skills needed to properly evaluate and understand breast tissue specimens, including formal surgical resections, by the pathologist and breast clinician following NAT for breast cancer in order to better understand treatment effect and assess for residual disease.


Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Core Needle Biopsy Pretreatment Tumor Residual Carcinoma Powerful Research Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hortobagyi GN. Comprehensive management of locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer. 1990;66:1387–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Wolmark N. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002;95:681–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4224–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson NE, Morrow M. Sometimes a great notion – an assessment of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. JNCI. 2005;97:159–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waljee JF, Newman LA. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy and the surgical management of breast cancer. Surg Clin N Am. 2007;87:399–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:188–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol. 1993;16:223–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast; a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:297–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin based neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:460–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ogston KN et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast carcinomas to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003;12:320–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 2010.
    Abrial SC, Penault-Llorca F, Delva R, et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;94:255–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:201037–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S, et al. Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8331–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, et al. Outcome after pathologic complete ­eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary note metastases following primary ­chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9304–2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;28:1–27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rajan R et al. Change in tumor cellularity of breast carcinoma ater neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a variable in the pathologic assessment of response. Cancer. 2004;100:1365–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, Dixon JM, et al. Biomarker changes during neoadjuvant anastrozole, tamoxifen, or the combination: influence of hormonal status and HER-2 in breast cancer – a study from the IMPACT trialists. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2477–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burstein HJ, Harris LN, Gelman R, et al. Preoperative therapy with trastuzumab and paclitaxel followed by sequential adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide for HER2 overexpressing stage II or III breast cancer: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:46–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouzier R et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1304–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klauber-DeMore N, Ollila DW, Moore DT, et al. Size of residual lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients is prognostic. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:685–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pu RT, Schott AF, Sturtz DE, Griffith KA, Kleer CG. Pathologic features of breast cancer associated with complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: importance of tumor necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:354–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cox CE et al. Sentinel node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy for determining axillary status and treatment prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:483–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donnelly J, Parham DM, Hickish T, Chan HY, Skene AI. Axillary lymph node scarring and the association with tumour response following neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for breast cancer. Breast. 2001;10:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newman LA, Pernick NL, Adsay V, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neuman H et al. Axillary lymph node count is lower after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2006;191:827–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuroi K, Toi M, Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Akiyama F. Issues in the assessment of the pathologic effect of primary systemic therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:38–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pindar 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations