Skip to main content

Treatment-Related Changes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Differential Diagnosis in Breast Pathology

Part of the book series: Atlas of Anatomic Pathology ((AAP))

  • 2512 Accesses

Abstract

Neoadjuvant, primary, or preoperative chemotherapy refers to the treatment of patients with systemic agents before definitive surgical removal of a tumour. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was introduced in the early 1970s as the treatment of choice for inoperable, locally advanced breast cancer. This approach resulted in significant responses and downstaging of many tumours, permitting mastectomy in some patients. Gradually, the idea of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was extended to include patients with large but operable early-stage breast cancer, allowing the same possibility of tumour downstaging and breast-conserving surgery. Additionally, several randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses showed similar disease-free and overall survivals for patients who received chemotherapy in either an adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Today, based on these findings, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is considered an appropriate treatment option for most patients diagnosed with breast cancer where adjuvant chemotherapy was indicated. For patients with inflammatory breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is regarded as the standard of care. It is the preferred option for locally advanced breast cancer, and this approach allows both clinicians and patients to have an in vivo assessment of therapeutic efficacy, which can then be used as a surrogate marker to predict long-term survival. Additionally, neoadjuvant trials have been increasingly recognised as a promising platform for efficient testing of investigational compounds and experimental targeted therapies. Most of the current neoadjuvant therapy regimens include a combination of cytotoxic agents. In recent years, with the development of targeted therapy options, many different treatment protocols, which include hormonal and target-specific agents, have been used in the neoadjuvant setting. Assessment of the quantity and biology of the residual tumour can provide further prognostic information for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. The possibility of collecting tumour samples before, during, and after the neoadjuvant treatment offers a unique translational research opportunity to delineate the biologic actions of the often personalised, targeted compounds in vivo. Identifying response markers provides a valuable platform from which to advance personalised cancer therapy.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. Untch M, Konecny GE, Paepke S, von Minckwitz G. Current and future role of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast. 2014;23:526–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Holmes D, Colfry A, Czerniecki B, Dickson-Witmer D, Francisco Espinel C, Feldman E, et al. Performance and practice guideline for the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in the management of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3184–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Ghilardi M, Lonati V, Barni S. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151:251–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, Cameron D, Carey LA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1508–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Santa-Maria CA, Camp M, Cimino-Mathews A, Harvey S, Wright J, Stearns V. Neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer: current practice, controversies, and future directions. Oncology (Williston Park). 2015;29:828–38.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cortazar P, Geyer Jr CE. Pathological complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berruti A, Amoroso V, Gallo F, Bertaglia V, Simoncini E, Pedersini R, et al. Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a metaregression of 29 randomized prospective studies. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3883–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: pathological complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk early-stage breast cancer: use as an endpoint to support accelerated approval. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:324–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:18–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dialani V, Chadashvili T, Slanetz PJ. Role of imaging in neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1416–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Feng Y, Huang R, He Y, Lu A, Fan Z, Fan T, et al. Efficacy of physical examination, ultrasound, and ultrasound combined with fine-needle aspiration for axilla staging of primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:761–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. El Hage CH, Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Refining the performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pathologically proven pre-treatment node-positive breast cancer: an update for clinical practice. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:1461–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Buchholz TA, Mittendorf EA, Hunt KK. Surgical considerations after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: breast conservation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2015;51:11–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caudle AS, Cupp JA, Kuerer HM. Management of axillary disease. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014;23:473–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF, Boughey JC, Coles C, Curigliano G, et al.; Breast International Group–North American Breast Cancer Group (BIG-NABCG) collaboration. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1280–91.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Provenzano E, Bossuyt V, Viale G, Cameron D, Badve S, Denkert C, et al.; Residual Disease Characterization Working Group of the Breast International Group–North American Breast Cancer Group Collaboration. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:1185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sahoo S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargawa R. Pathology of neoadjuvant therapeutic response of breast carcinoma. In: Dabbs DJ, editor. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 519–35.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leyland-Jones BR, Ambrosone CB, Bartlett J, Ellis MJ, Enos RA, Raji A, et al. Recommendations for collection and handling of specimens from group breast cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5638–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC, Collichio F, Sartor CI, Ollila DW, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. 2012. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer_protocols/2012/BreastInvasive_12protocol_3100.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2016.

  22. Keam B, Im SA, Lim Y, Han SW, Moon HG, Oh DY, et al. Clinical usefulness of AJCC response criteria for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sahoo S, Lester SC. Pathology of breast carcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an overview with recommendations on specimen processing and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:633–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP, Chollet P, Hurteloup P. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chollet P, Abrial C, Durando X, Thivat E, Tacca O, Mouret-Reynier MA, et al. A new prognostic classification after primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN). Cancer J. 2008;14:128–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:297–306.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Residual cancer burden calculator. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2016. http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3. Accessed 30 July 2016.

  31. Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, Raoelfils I, Cayre A, Mouret-Reynier MA, Leheurteur M, et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:1221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK, Smith I, et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003;12:320–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abdel-Fatah TM, Ball G, Lee AH, Pinder S, MacMilan RD, Cornford E, et al. Nottingham Clinico-Pathological Response Index (NPRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Neo-ACT) accurately predicts clinical outcome in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1052–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, Kuerer H, Sneige N, Buzdar AU, et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Neuman H, Carey LA, Ollila DW, Livasy C, Calvo BF, Meyer AA, et al. Axillary lymph node count is lower after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2006;191:827–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Boughey JC, Donohue JH, Jakub JW, Lohse CM, Degnim AC. Number of lymph nodes identified at axillary dissection: effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and other factors. Cancer. 2010;116:3322–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Harris JR, Cohen RB. Radiation-induced changes in the breast. Hum Pathol. 1984;15:545–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tan, P.H., Sahin, A.A. (2017). Treatment-Related Changes. In: Atlas of Differential Diagnosis in Breast Pathology. Atlas of Anatomic Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6697-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6697-4_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6695-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6697-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics