Pathologic evaluation of early breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is essential to provide prognostic information based on tumor response to treatment (pathologic complete response [pCR] or non-pCR) and to inform therapy decisions after surgery. To harmonize the pathologist’s handling of surgical specimens after neoadjuvant therapy, a panel of experts in breast cancer convened to developed a consensus on six main topics: (1) definition of pCR, (2) required clinical information, (3) gross examination and sampling, (4) microscopic examination, (5) evaluation of lymph node status, and (6) staging of residual breast tumor. The resulting consensus statements reported in this document highlight the role of an accurate evaluation of tumor response and define the minimum requirements to standardize the assessment of breast cancer specimens after neoadjuvant therapy.
KordeLASomerfieldMRCareyLA, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol2021; 39: 1485–1505.
4.
PernautCLopezFCiruelosE. Standard neoadjuvant treatment in early/locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Care2018; 13: 244–249.
5.
ZardavasDPiccartM. Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Rev Med2015; 66: 31–48.
HuangMO’ShaughnessyJZhaoJ, et al. Association of pathologic complete response with long-term survival outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Res2020; 80: 5427–5434.
8.
SpringLMFellGArfeA, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res2020; 26: 2838–2848.
9.
CortazarPZhangLUntchM, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet2014; 384: 164–172.
10.
von MinckwitzGUntchMBlohmerJU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 1796–1804.
11.
BossuytVProvenzanoESymmansWF, et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol2015; 26: 1280–1291.
FisherERWangJBryantJ, et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer2002; 95: 681–695.
14.
VialeG. Characterization and clinical impact of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast2013; 22 Suppl2: S88–S91.
15.
MazouniCPeintingerFWan-KauS, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 2650–2655.
16.
ProvenzanoEBossuytVVialeG, et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. Mod Pathol2015; 28: 1185–1201.
17.
MrkonjicMBermanHKDoneSJ, et al. Breast specimen handling and reporting in the post-neoadjuvant setting: challenges and advances. J Clin Pathol2019; 72: 120–132.
18.
HammondMEHayesDFDowsettM, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 2784–2795.
19.
CaparicaRLambertiniMPondéN, et al. Post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease in breast cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Ther Adv Med Oncol2019; 11: 1758835919827714.
20.
MasudaNLeeSJOhtaniS, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med2017; 376: 2147–2159.
21.
von MinckwitzGHuangCSManoMS, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med2019; 380: 617–628.
22.
MamounasEPUntchMManoMS, et al. Adjuvant T-DM1 versus trastuzumab in patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: subgroup analyses from KATHERINE. Ann Oncol2021; 32: 1005–1014.
23.
MarchiòCMalettaFAnnaratoneL, et al. The perfect pathology report after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2015; 2015: 47–50.
24.
EllisIOGaleaMBroughtonN, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer: II: histological type: relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology1992; 20: 479–489.
25.
HamyASLamGTLaasE, et al. Lymphovascular invasion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is strongly associated with poor prognosis in breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat2018; 169: 295–304.
26.
von MinckwitzGSchmittWDLoiblS, et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res2013; 19: 4521–4531.
27.
SymmansWFPeintingerFHatzisC, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 4414–4422.
28.
NiikuraNTomotakiAMiyataH, et al. Changes in tumor expression of HER2 and hormone receptors status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21,755 patients from the Japanese breast cancer registry. Ann Oncol2016; 27: 480–487.
29.
MontagnaEBagnardiVVialeG, et al. Changes in PgR and Ki-67 in residual tumour and outcome of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol2015; 26: 307–313.
30.
JabbourMNMassadCYBoulosFI. Variability in hormone and growth factor receptor expression in primary versus recurrent, metastatic, and post-neoadjuvant breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat2012; 135: 29–37.
31.
ParinyanitikulNLeiXChavez-MacGregorM, et al. Receptor status change from primary to residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and analysis of survival outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer2015; 15: 153–160.
32.
Rey-VargasLMejía-HenaoJCSanabria-SalasMC, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant therapy on breast cancer biomarker profile. BMC Cancer2020; 20: 675.
33.
RobertsonSRönnlundCde BonifaceJ, et al. Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Res Treat2019; 174: 795–805.
34.
LanjewarSPatilPFinebergS. Pathologic reporting practices for breast cancer specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a survey of pathologists in academic institutions across the United States. Mod Pathol2020; 33: 91–98.
35.
College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. College of American Pathologists;2018.
36.
LimSKLeeMHParkIH, et al. Impact of molecular subtype conversion of breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on clinical outcome. Cancer Res Treat2016; 48: 133–141.
37.
TaccaOPenault-LlorcaFAbrialC, et al. Changes in and prognostic value of hormone receptor status in a series of operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist2007; 12: 636–643.
38.
BursteinHJCuriglianoGLoiblS, et al. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019. Ann Oncol2019; 30: 1541–1557.
39.
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Breast Cancer: NCCN Guidelines with NCCN Evidence Blocks, Version 5.2020. NCCN; 2020.
40.
MooTAEdelweissMHajiyevaS, et al. Is low-volume disease in the sentinel node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy an indication for axillary dissection?Ann Surg Oncol2018; 25: 1488–1494.
41.
BossuytVSpringL. Pathologic evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy drives treatment changes and improves long-term outcomes for breast cancer patients. Breast J2020; 26: 1189–1198.
42.
AminMBEdgeSBGreeneFL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed.Springer; 2017.
43.
FeldmanSKrishnamurthySGillandersW, et al. A novel automated assay for the rapid identification of metastatic breast carcinoma in sentinel lymph nodes. Cancer2011; 117: 2599–2607.
44.
MamounasEP. Optimizing surgical management of the axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an evolving story. Ann Surg Oncol2018; 25: 2124–2126.
45.
Comparison of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection With Axillary Radiation for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01901094
46.
SymmansWFWeiCGouldR, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol2017; 35: 1049–1060.
47.
SheriASmithIEJohnstonSR, et al. Residual proliferative cancer burden to predict long-term outcome following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol2015; 26: 75–80.
48.
LoiblSMarméFMartinM, et al. Palbociclib for residual high-risk invasive HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer: the Penelope-B trial. J Clin Oncol2021; 39: 1518–1530.
49.
TuttANJGarberJEKaufmanB, et al. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med2021; 384: 2394–2405.
50.
MarméFStickelerEFurlanettoJ, et al. Phase III postneoadjuvant study evaluating sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody drug conjugate in primary HER2-negative breast cancer patients with high relapse risk after standard neoadjuvant treatment: SASCIA. J Clin Oncol39 (15 suppl). Epub May 28, 2021. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.TPS602
51.
JerussJSMittendorfEATuckerSL, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol2008; 26: 246–252.
52.
MittendorfEAJerussJSTuckerSL, et al. Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 1956–1962.
53.
MarméFLedererBBlohmerJU, et al. Utility of the CPS+EG staging system in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer2016; 53: 65–74.
54.
MarméFSolbachCMichelL, et al. Utility of the CPS + EG scoring system in triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer2021; 153: 203–212.
