Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma are frequently termed cellular fibroadenomas although criteria for distinguishing them from a phyllodes tumor are vague and subjective. However, the clinical implications and surgical management for these 2 lesions may be different. We randomly selected 21 cases of fibroepithelial lesions sent in consultation to the senior author that were challenging to classify as cellular fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. One to 2 representative slides of each case along with patient age were sent to 10 pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. The World Health Organization criteria for phyllodes tumors and a diagnosis form were included with the study set. For the purposes of data reporting, fibroadenoma and cellular fibroadenoma are considered together. In only 2 cases was there uniform agreement as to whether the tumor represented a fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. Of the remaining 19 cases, if the diagnoses of fibroadenoma and benign phyllodes tumor were combined and separated from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors, there was 100% agreement in 53% of cases and 90% agreement in 79% of cases. This study highlights the difficulty that exists in distinguishing some cellular fibroadenomas from phyllodes tumors even for pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. However, there appears to be considerable agreement when cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors are distinguished from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors. Further studies are needed to determine if there is a clinically significant difference between cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors and how to better distinguish them from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors.
The Effect of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score on Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Estrogen Receptor–Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer and Correlation with Estimation of Recurrence Risk by Breast Cancer Specialists
Abstract Purpose. The Oncotype DX assay predicts likelihood of distant recurrence and improves patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in estrogen receptor–positive (ER-positive) early stage breast cancer. This study has two primary endpoints: to evaluate the impact of Oncotype DX recurrence scores (RS) on chemotherapy recommendations and to compare the estimated recurrence risk predicted by breast oncology specialists to RS. Methods. One hundred fifty-four patients with ER-positive early stage breast cancer and available RS results were selected. Clinicopathologic data were provided to four surgeons, four medical oncologists, and four pathologists. Participants were asked to estimate recurrence risk category and offer their chemotherapy recommendations initially without and later with knowledge of RS results. The three most important clinicopathologic features guiding their recommendations were requested. Results. Ninety-five (61.7%), 45 (29.2%), and 14 (9.1%) tumors were low, intermediate, and high risk by RS, respectively. RS significantly correlated with tumor grade, mitotic activity, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor, and HER2/neu status. Estimated recurrence risk by participants agreed with RS in 54.2% ± 2.3% of cases. Without and with knowledge of RS, 82.3% ± 1.3% and 69.0% ± 6.9% of patients may be overtreated, respectively (p = 0.0322). Inclusion of RS data resulted in a 24.9% change in treatment recommendations. There was no significant difference in recommendations between groups of participants. Conclusions. Breast oncology specialists tended to overestimate the risk of tumor recurrence compared with RS. RS provides useful information that improves patient selection for chemotherapy and changes treatment recommendations in approximately 25% of cases.
Estimation of Risk of Recurrence of Early Stage Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Carcinoma by Surgical and Medical Oncologists and Pathologists Compared to the Oncotype Dx® Recurrence Score.
Abstract Background: The decision to use adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer is based in part on the estimation of risk of tumor recurrence by physicians, which traditionally relies heavily on tumor size, nodal status and a set of biologic tumor characteristics such as hormone receptor and HER2 expression. The Oncotype DX® assay is a 21-gene expression profile aiming to improve risk stratification, recurrence prediction and optimize selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy.Methods: We selected 154 consecutive patients with early stage estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer and available Oncotype Dx® recurrence score (RS) for the study. Clinicopathologic data, including patient age, menopausal status, tumor size, histologic type, grade, mitotic activity, presence of lymphatic invasion (LVI), nodal status, hormone receptor and HER2 status on all patients were provided to four surgical oncologists, four medical oncologists and three pathologists, specializing in breast cancer diagnosis and management. Participants were asked to estimate the risk of recurrence of tumors based on available clinicopathologic data and to provide the three most important tumor features their risk estimates were based on. Risk estimates of participants were compared with RS results.Results: Based on the Oncotype Dx® results, 95 (61.7%), 45 (29.2%) and 14 (9.1%) tumors were of low (RS <18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS ≥31) risk, respectively. RS values showed a highly significant correlation with tumor grade, mitotic activity, LVI, hormone receptor and HER2 status, while no correlation with patient age, menopausal status, tumor size and histologic type was found. Participants' risk estimates agreed with those of the Oncotype Dx® assay in 54.2 ± 2.3 % (mean ± SEM, range 41.6 - 63.0%) of cases, while the risk of recurrence was over- and underestimated compared to RS results in 31.8 ± 3.1% (16.2 - 43.5%) and 14.1 ± 1.4% (7.1 - 22.7%), respectively. The rates of overestimation were significantly higher than those of underestimation (p = 0.0003). Although medical oncologists tended to overestimate the risk more frequently (38.1 ± 2.0%) compared to surgeons (28.7 ± 5.9%) and pathologists (27.5 ± 7.8%), the difference did not reach statistical significance. Estimation of the agreement of participants' risk assessment with RS results showed a mean kappa value of 0.2955 (range 0.1506 - 0.4123). No statistically significant difference in overall concurrence with RS results was found between surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists. Participants ranked tumor stage/nodal status, hormone receptor status and tumor size to be the most important features when estimating recurrence risk.Conclusions: Based on traditional clinicopathologic features alone, surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists tend to overestimate the risk of tumor recurrence as compared to Oncotype Dx® assay results. The RS may provide additional information regarding the intrinsic biological features of ER positive breast cancers and help tailoring treatment recommendations. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4061.
The Effect of Oncotype Dx® Recurrence Score on Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Early Stage Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer.
Abstract Background: Current guidelines recommend administration of chemotherapy for patients with breast carcinomas >1 cm in size, with consideration for patient age, comorbidities and tumor grade. However, it is unknown which patients actually benefit from therapy and overtreatment of a significant proportion of patients is a major concern. We investigated the impact of the Oncotype Dx® Recurrence Score (RS) on chemotherapy recommendations in early stage estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer patients.Methods: We selected 154 patients with early stage ER positive breast cancer and available RS for the study. Clinicopathologic data, including age, menopausal status, tumor size, type, grade, mitotic activity, presence of lymphatic invasion, nodal status, hormone receptor and HER2 status on all patients were provided to four surgical oncologists, four medical oncologists and three pathologists, specializing in breast cancer diagnosis and management. Assuming that all patients were in good general health and would receive endocrine therapy, participants were asked whether they would also advovate adjuvant chemotherapy based on clinicopathologic data with and without knowledge of the RS, and to provide the three salient clinicopathologic features on which their recommendations were based. Changes in recommendations of participants following inclusion of RS data were compared.Results: Based on RS results, 95 (61.7%), 45 (29.2%) and 14 (9.1%) tumors were of low (RS <18), intermediate (RS 18-30) and high (RS ≥31) risk, respectively. The results are summarized in Table 1. Assuming that the hypothesis previously put forward that patients with low to intermediate risk RS are not likely to benefit from chemotherapy, 82.3 ± 1.3% (75.5 - 89.0%) and 69.0 ± 6.9% (5.9 - 85.7%) of patients for whom chemotherapy was recommended by the participants would be "overtreated" without and with the use of RS results (p = 0.0322). No statistically significant difference was found among surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists. Participants ranked patient age/menopausal status, hormone receptor status and tumor stage/nodal status to be the most important features when recommending chemotherapy.Conclusions: Although current recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage ER positive breast cancer patients are largely in line with published guidelines, inclusion of RS alters recommendations in about 25% of cases. While medical oncologists recommended chemotherapy more frequently compared to surgeons and pathologists, they were more likely to change recommendations in light of RS results.Table 1. Summary of results SurgeonsMedical oncologistsPathologistsp* Mean ± SEMRangeMean ± SEMRangeMean ± SEMRange Chemo without RS (%)29.2 ± 1.824.0 - 31.859.0 ± 5.046.8 - 70.846.8 ± 3.741.6 - 53.90.0156Chemo with RS (%)27.0 ± 5.611.0 - 36.438.6 ± 9.517.5 - 63.644.4 ± 5.833.8 - 53.90.1794No change (%)75.3 ± 7.054.5 - 85.766.7 ± 6.851.3 - 83.885.9 ± 6.478.6 - 98.70.3682Add chemo (%)11.2 ± 4.13.2 - 22.76.5 ± 1.93.2 - 11.75.8 ± 3.20.6 - 11.70.6882Avoid chemo (%)13.5 ± 3.94.5 - 22.726.8 ± 7.94.5 - 41.68.2 ± 4.50.6 - 16.20.2186*Kruskal-Wallis test Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 4058.