James L. Connolly

Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999

BACKGROUND Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.

Expression of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) and its receptors in breast cancer

Solid tumors must induce a vascular stroma to grow beyond a minimal size, and the intensity of the angiogenic response has been correlated with prognosis in breast cancer patients. Vascular permeability factor (VPF), also known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), is a secreted protein that has been implicated in tumor-associated angiogenesis. Vascular permeability factor directly stimulates endothelial cell growth and also increases microvascular permeability, leading to the extravasation of plasma proteins, which alter the extracellular matrix in a manner that promotes angiogenesis. To determine whether VPF has a role in breast cancer, we used in situ hybridization to study VPF mRNA expression in normal breast tissue (13 specimens), comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (four specimens), infiltrating ductal carcinoma (12 specimens), infiltrating lobular carcinoma (two specimens), metastatic ductal carcinoma (three specimens) and metastatic lobular carcinoma (one specimen). Vascular permeability factor mRNA was expressed at a low level by normal duct epithelium but was expressed at high levels in tumor cells in all cases of comedo-type DCIS, infiltrating ductal carcinoma, and metastatic ductal carcinoma. In contrast, VPF mRNA was not expressed at high levels in infiltrating lobular carcinoma. We also used in situ hybridization to study the expression of two recently described endothelial cell surface VPF receptors, flt-1 and kdr. Vascular permeability factor receptor mRNA was strongly expressed in endothelial cells of small vessels adjacent to malignant tumor cells in DCIS, infiltrating ductal carcinoma, and metastatic ductal carcinoma. In contrast, no definite labeling for receptor mRNA was detected in infiltrating lobular carcinoma or nonmalignant breast tissue. The intense expression of VPF mRNA by breast carcinoma cells and of VPF receptor mRNA by endothelial cells of adjacent small blood vessels provides strong evidence linking VPF expression to the angiogenesis associated with comedo-type DCIS, infiltrating ductal, and metastatic ductal breast carcinoma.

Outcome at 8 Years After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy for Invasive Breast Cancer: Influence of Margin Status and Systemic Therapy on Local Recurrence

PURPOSE To examine the relationship between pathologic margin status and outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study population comprised 533 patients with International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage I or II breast cancer who had assessable margins, who received at least 60 Gy to the primary tumor bed, and who had more than 8 years of potential follow-up. Each margin was scored (according to the presence of invasive or in situ disease that touched the inked surgical margin) as one of the following: negative, close, focally positive, or extensively positive. Outcome at 8 years was calculated using crude rates of first site of failure. A polychotomous logistic regression analysis was performed. Median follow-up time was 127 months. RESULTS At 8 years, patients with close margins and those with negative margins both had a rate of local recurrence (LR) of 7%. Patients with extensively positive margins had an LR rate of 27%, whereas patients with focally positive margins had an intermediate rate of LR of 14%. In the polychotomous logistic regression model, margin status and the use of systemic therapy were the only two variables that had significant effects on the risk ratio of LR to remaining alive and free of disease. Among the 45 patients with focally positive margins who received systemic therapy, the crude LR rate was 7% at 8 years (95% confidence interval, 1% to 20%). CONCLUSION Pathologic margin status and the use of adjuvant systemic therapy are the most important factors associated with LR among patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy.

The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy

Background. The relationships among the involvement of tumor at the final margins of resection, the presence of an extensive intraductal component (EIC), and the risk of local recurrence are important considerations in patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer but have not been defined adequately.

Relationship of patient age to pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer.

PURPOSE This analysis was performed to clarify the relationship of young age at diagnosis to the pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis in patients with early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,398 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging stage I or II breast cancer treated by breast-conserving therapy between 1968 and 1985. One hundred seven patients were younger than 35 years at the time of diagnosis. The median follow-up duration for the 1,032 survivors was 99 months. RESULTS Patients younger than 35 years had a significantly higher overall recurrence rate (P = .002), as well as a greater risk for developing distant metastases (P = .03), when compared with older patients. The cancers in younger patients more commonly showed factors associated with a worse prognosis (including grade 3 histology, lymphatic vessel invasion [LVI], necrosis, and estrogen receptor [ER] negativity) as compared with older patients. In a proportional hazards model that included clinical and treatment-related variables, as well as these pathologic features, age younger than 35 years remained a significant predictor for time to recurrence (relative risk [RR], 1.70), time to distant failure (RR, 1.60), and overall mortality (RR, 1.50). CONCLUSION Breast cancer patients younger than 35 years have a worse prognosis than older patients. This difference is only partially explained by a higher frequency of adverse pathologic factors seen in younger patients.

Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Ductal Proliferative Breast Lesions Using Standardized Criteria

Although the categorization of proliferative breast lesions provides valuable information regarding subsequent risk of breast cancer, the ability of pathologists to classify such lesions in a reproducible fashion has not been adequately evaluated. To assess further interobserver reproducibility in the categorization of proliferative breast lesions, six pathologists each reviewed 24 proliferative ductal lesions and classified them as either usual hyperplasia (H), atypical hyperplasia (AH), or carcinoma in situ (CIS). Before evaluation of the study slides, all the participants were instructed to use the diagnostic criteria of Page and co-workers and were provided with both a written summary of these criteria and a set of teaching slides with representative examples of each type of lesion. Complete agreement among all six pathologists was seen in 14 cases (58%); five or more agreed in 17 cases (71%); and four or more arrived at the same diagnosis in 22 cases (92%). No pathologist consistently rendered more “benign” or “malignant” diagnoses than any other. After assigning numerical values for each diagnostic category (H = 1, AH = 2, CIS = 3), the scores for the group of 24 cases did not differ significantly by pathologist (p = 0.68; average score range, 1.7–2.0). Our results indicate that with the use of standardized criteria, interobserver concordance in the diagnosis of proliferative ductal breast lesions can be obtained in the majority of cases.

Pathologic predictors of early local recurrence in stage I and II breast cancer treated by primary radiation therapy

Thirty‐four gross and histologic features of the primary tumor in 231 cases of clinical Stage I and II invasive breast cancer were reviewed in an attempt to identify features which might correlate with an increased risk of local recurrence within the breast following biopsy and primary radiation therapy. Local recurrence risk at 5 years was calculated for each feature studied. While results are reported in terms of 5‐year actuarial local recurrence risk, not all patients were followed for 5 years (median follow‐up period, 44 months). Patients with cases in which the biopsy was less than excisional had a considerably greater actuarial risk of local recurrence at 5 years than those in which the biopsy was excisional (36% versus 8%; P = 0.0005). Among 154 infiltrating ductal carcinomas treated by excisional biopsy prior to radiotherapy, histologic features associated with a significantly increased local recurrence risk at 5 years were the combination of extensive intraductal involvement by carcinoma and high nuclear grade and/or high mitotic index. Twenty‐seven tumors demonstrated this constellation of features, and there was a 5‐year actuarial local recurrence risk of 39% among this group. The local recurrence risk for the remainder of the population was only 4% (P < 0.0001). Thus, through pathologic examination of the primary, the authors identified a subgroup of patients with a considerably increased risk of local recurrence following biopsy and primary radiotherapy. Cancer 53:1049‐1057, 1984.

Breast cancer staging: working with the sixth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

The sixth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual contains some of the most extensive and significant revisions that have ever been made in the breast cancer staging system. The principal changes are related to the size, number, location, and method of detection of regional metastases to the lymph nodes. Some changes are related to the growing use of new technology (eg, sentinel lymph node biopsy, immunohistochemical staining, reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction), whereas others are amendments of prior staging criteria, reflecting recent clinical evidence or widespread clinical consensus. Available data did not support the addition of new prognostic indicators such as histologic tumor grade to the tumor‐node‐metastasis system at this time. Future developments in determining breast cancer prognosis will most likely incorporate new approaches to identifying the genetic fingerprint of individual tumors.

Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise?

Large core needle biopsies using stereotactic mammography or ultrasound guidance are now commonly performed as the initial diagnostic approach to nonpalpable breast lesions. Although the subsequent management of patients with invasive cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, and most benign lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy specimens is straightforward, certain nonmalignant lesions pose dilemmas with regard to the most appropriate clinical management following core needle biopsy. The purpose of this article is to review the available data regarding several nonmalignant breast lesions, which when encountered in core needle biopsy specimens raise repeated management questions. These include atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ), papillary lesions, radial scars, fibroepithelial lesions, mucocele-like lesions, and columnar cell lesions.

Pathologic findings on re-excision of the primary site in breast cancer patients considered for treatment by primary radiation therapy.

Gross excision of the tumor followed by radiotherapy is used for treatment of early breast cancer. Local recurrence after this form of treatment is uncommon except in patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma whose excision specimens reveal an extensive intraductal component (EIC). It is unclear whether this observation is due to a qualitative difference in the response of tumors with EIC to radiation or to a quantitative difference in the tumor burden remaining after gross excision in patients with EIC. To address this question, the authors examined pathologic material in 71 patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma treated with gross excision of the tumor and then selected for re‐excision of the tumor site prior to radiotherapy because of the presence of either EIC in the primary excision specimen or microscopic tumor at or close to margins in the initial excision. Residual carcinoma was seen in 62% of all patients but was more frequent among the 25 patients with EIC than the 46 without (88% vs. 48%, P = 0.002). The nature of the residual tumor differed for patients with and without EIC in the primary excision specimen. Residual carcinoma in patients with EIC was often widespread and composed predominantly of intraductal carcinoma. In contrast, residual tumor in patients without EIC usually consisted of only scattered microscopic foci of infiltrating and/or intraductal carcinoma. The authors conclude that patients with EIC treated with gross excision of the tumor frequently have considerable residual intraductal carcinoma near the primary site. This finding may account for the increased risk of local recurrence observed in patients with EIC treated without re‐excision of the tumor site before radiation therapy. Cancer 59:675‐681, 1987.