Current principles underlying clinician and pathologist cooperation in pathological and genetic diagnostics in breast cancer patients in the times of personalised medicine

Ewa Śrutek; Tomasz Nowikiewicz; Wojciech Zegarski

doi:10.20883/jms.2018.280

Authors

Ewa Śrutek Chair and Department of Surgical Oncology, Ludwik Rydygier’s Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland
Tomasz Nowikiewicz - Department of Clinical Breast Cancer and Reconstructive Surgery, Oncology Center – Prof Franciszek Lukaszczyk Memorial Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland - Chair and Department of Surgical Oncology, Ludwik Rydygier’s Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6492-4427
Wojciech Zegarski Chair and Department of Surgical Oncology, Ludwik Rydygier’s Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20883/jms.2018.280

Keywords:

breast cancer, pathological diagnostics, genetic diagnostics, interdisciplinary communication

Abstract

Positive long-term treatment outcome in cancer patients depends mainly on the disease stage. It also depends on selection of an optimum therapeutic management. In breast cancer patients, the final treatment arrangements result, to a large extent, from a quality of cooperation of medical personnel providing cancer diagnostics and therapy. This requires knowledge of mutual expectations of doctors of different specialisations. The most common problems in interdisciplinary communication are relatively easy to notice in relations between a clinician (surgeon) and a pathologist. This paper discusses the most important aspects of that relationship.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–978.

Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287–5312.

Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumour markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem. 2008;54:11–79.

Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(8):1700–1712.

Polley MY, Leung SC, Gao D, et al. An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:778–786.

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

Tvedskov TF, Bartels A, Jensen MB, et al. Evaluating TIMP-1, Ki67, and HER2 as markers for non-sentinel node metastases in breast cancer patients with micrometastases to the sentinel node. APMIS. 2011;119:844–852.

Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:736–750.

Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5678–5685.

Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1897–1906.

Marcinkowska M, Stańczyk M, Klajnert-Maculewicz B. Trastuzumab – a monoclonal antibody and dendrimers in a targeted therapy for breast cancer. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. (Online) 2015;69:1313–1324.

Dębska-Szmich S, Kusińska R, Czernek U et al. Prognostic value of HER3, PTEN and p-HER2 expression in patients with HER2 positive breast cancer. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. (Online) 2015;69:586–597.

Koss LG. Koss’ diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases, editor, Leopold G. Koss, coeditor, Myron R. Melamed – 5th ed. 2006.

Olszewski WP. Zasady diagnostyki morfologicznej u chorych na raka piersi. Przegląd procedur diagnostycznych. Pol J Pathol. 2009;3(Suppl. 1):10–12.

Chmielik E, Łuczyńska E. Biopsja gruboigłowa piersi – wytyczne diagnostyczne. Pol J Pathol. 2009;3(Suppl. 1):13–19.

Hodi Z, Chakrabarti J, Lee AH, et al. The reliability of estrogen receptor expression on needle core biopsies of invasive carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:299–302.

Burge CN, Chang HR, Apple SK. Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens. Breast. 2006;15:167–172.

Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–575.

Nowikiewicz T, Zegarski W, Pagacz K, et al. Does the presence of sentinel lymph node macrometastases in breast cancer patients require axillary lymph node dissection? – single center analysis. Breast J 2018; DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12997 [Epub ahead of print]

Nowikiewicz T, Zegarski W, Pagacz K, et al. The current application of ACOSOG Z0011 trial results: Is further implementation of sentinel lymph node intra-operative histopathological examination mandatory in breast cancer patients – a single-centre analysis. Neoplasma 2018 [Epub ahead of print].

Lindstrom LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, et al. Clinically Used Breast Cancer Markers Such An Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Are Unstable Throughout Tumor Progression. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2601–2608.

Chmielik E, Olszewski WP. Raport patologiczny raka sutka po przedoperacyjnej chemioterapii. Pol J Pathol. 2011;62,4(Suppl. 4):34–35.

Piechocki J. Diagnostyka i leczenie raka przewodowego in situ piersi. In: Nowecki ZI, Jeziorski A (eds.). Chirurgiczne leczenie zmian nowotworowych piersi. Konsensus Polskiego Towarzystwa Chirurgii Onkologicznej. Gdańsk, Via Medica 2016, p. 44–46.

Nowikiewicz T, Zegarski W. Zakres leczenia operacyjnego pacjentów z przewodowym rakiem piersi in situ – zalecenia. Chirurgia po Dyplomie. 2016;11(6):44–49.

Bombonati A, Sgroi DC. The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol. 2011;223(2):307–17.

Morrow M, Schnitt SJ, Norton L. Current management of lesions associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:227–238.

Middleton LP, Sneige N, Coyne R, et al. Most lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed on core needle biopsy can be managed clinically with radiologic follow-up in a multidisciplinary setting. Cancer Medicine. 2014;3(3):492–499.

Śrutek E, Nowikiewicz T, Zegarski W. Current guidelines on the diagnosis and management of lobular carcinoma in situ. Curr Gynecol Oncol. 2017;15(1):87–90.

Kozłowski L. Diagnostyka i leczenie raka zrazikowego in situ. In: Nowecki ZI, Jeziorski A (eds.). Chirurgiczne leczenie zmian nowotworowych piersi. Konsensus Polskiego Towarzystwa Chirurgii Onkologicznej. Gdańsk, Via Medica 2016, p. 46–47.

Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1134–1150.

Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005–2014.

Felts JL, Zhu J, Han B, Smith SJ, Truica CI. An Analysis of Oncotype DX Recurrence Scores and Clinicopathologic Characteristics in Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Breast J. 2017;23(6):677–686.

Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2341–2349.

Gnant M, Sestak I, Filipits M, et al. Identifying clinically relevant prognostic subgroups of postmenopausal women with node-positive hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy: a combined analysis of ABCSG-8 and ATAC using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score and intrinsic subtype. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1685–1691.

Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: metaanalyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomized trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–444.

Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R, et al. Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:339–345.

Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R, et al. EP Investigators. 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;17:6012–6020.

Zhang YN, Zhou YD, Mao F, Sun Q. Impact of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay in adjuvant chemotherapy selection for node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the Chinese population. Neoplasma. 2015;62(4):658–665.

Xia R, Chen S, Zhang W et al. A 39-gene signature is associated with early occurrence of distant metastasis in primary lymph-node negative breast cancers. Neoplasma. 2015;62(5):821–826.

Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. MINDACT Investigators. 70-Gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:717–729.

Tang G, Shak S, Paik S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic utilities of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:133–142.

Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomized trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:55–65.

http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/noteworthy-trials/tailorx.

Atchley D, Albarracin C, Lopez A et al. Clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients with BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4282–4288.

Gulati A, Domchek S. The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Curr Oncol Rep. 2008;10:47–53.

Jassem J, Krzakowski M (eds.). Rak piersi. In: Krzakowski M, Warzocha K (eds.). Zalecenia postępowania diagnostyczno-terapeutycznego w nowotworach złośliwych 2013 rok. Onkologia w Praktyce Klinicznej. Gdańsk 2013; p: 215–218.

Nowacka-Zawisza M, Krajewska WM. Triple-negative breast cancer: molecular characteristics and potential therapeutic approaches. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. (Online) 2013;67:1090–1097.

Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:790–800.

Schon K, Tischkowitz M. Clinical implications of germline mutations in breast cancer: TP53. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(2):417–423.

Ngeow J, Sesock K, Eng C. Breast cancer risk and clinical implications for germline PTEN mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):1–8.

Tkacz M, Tarnowski M, Staniszewska M, Pawlik A. Role of prometastatic factors in gastric cancer development. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. (online) 2016;70: 1367–1377.

Njoroge SW, Burgess KR, Cobleigh MA, et al. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lynch syndromes in a BRCA1/2 negative breast cancer patient. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(1):315–319.