Ellis, Ian O.

The 6th edition of the WHO Classification of Breast Tumours introduces both major and minor changes based on recent advances in our understanding of breast biology, developments in diagnostic modalities, identification of specific molecular targets and new treatment regimens necessitating modifications to pathology reporting and tumour biomarker categorisation. This review summarises the main changes that strive towards a classification of global relevance. In invasive carcinoma, predictive factors increasingly inform modern breast cancer treatment. The 6th edition provides an update on HER2 reporting categories following the DESTINY‐Breast 04 and 06 trials. Terminologies used to classify invasive tumours are clarified, with the term ‘variant’ now reserved for molecular/genetic alterations. Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) with extracellular mucin is recognised as a new diagnostic entity with prognostic implications. The diagnosis of mucinous carcinoma (MC) is reserved for mucin secreting carcinomas with grade 1 or 2 morphology and a favourable biomarker profile. The diagnosis of malignant phyllodes tumours requires only four of the original five adverse histological criteria. Classification of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) is revised, recognising that the unified model, promoted in the 5th edition, is difficult to apply to the breast. New approaches to the classification of adenomyoepithelioma are discussed but the 5th edition system is broadly retained. A new section on ‘Small Diagnostic Samples’ outlines the merits of non‐operative biopsy diagnosis, the B coding system and the importance of multidisciplinary review. Changes to diagnostic practice and the emerging role of artificial intelligence, with advantages and challenges, are discussed in a new section on ‘Digital Pathology’.

Context.— The Nottingham Grading System (NGS) developed by Elston and Ellis is used to grade invasive breast cancer (IBC). Glandular (acinar)/tubule formation is a component of NGS. Objective.— To investigate the ability of pathologists to identify individual structures that should be classified as glandular (acinar)/tubule formation. Design.— A total of 58 hematoxylin-eosin photographic images of IBC with 1 structure circled were classified as tubules (41 cases) or nontubules (17 cases) by Professor Ellis. Images were sent as a PowerPoint (Microsoft) file to breast pathologists, who were provided with the World Health Organization definition of a tubule and asked to determine if a circled structure represented a tubule. Results.— Among 35 pathologists, the κ statistic for assessing agreement in evaluating the 58 images was 0.324 (95% CI, 0.314–0.335). The median concordance rate between a participating pathologist and Professor Ellis was 94.1% for evaluating 17 nontubule cases and 53.7% for 41 tubule cases. A total of 41% of the tubule cases were classified correctly by less than 50% of pathologists. Structures classified as tubules by Professor Ellis but often not recognized as tubules by pathologists included glands with complex architecture, mucinous carcinoma, and the “inverted tubule” pattern of micropapillary carcinoma. A total of 80% of participants reported that they did not have clarity on what represented a tubule. Conclusions.— We identified structures that should be included as tubules but that were not readily identified by pathologists. Greater concordance for identification of tubules might be obtained by providing more detailed images and descriptions of the types of structures included as tubules.