Farshid, Gelareh

Abstract Background Breast cancer is etiologically heterogeneous, but which risk factors differ in their associations across tumor subtypes remains unclear. We conducted a large, pooled analysis to evaluate independent, dose-response associations between breast cancer risk factors and quantitative tumor features. Methods Analyses of 15,731 invasive breast cancers from 24 studies evaluated associations (p-trend) between reproductive and hormonal factors, body mass index (BMI), alcohol, smoking, and family history in relation to quantitative immunohistochemistry measures on tissue microarrays (ER, PR, HER2, KI67, TP53) and tumor grade. Analyses in a subset of 10 population-based studies estimated subtype-specific odds ratios (ORs) comparing cases to controls. A Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) <0.2 was used to identify associations with strong statistical evidence. Results Nulliparity and later age at menopause were associated with higher ER-positivity (p-trend=0.021 and 0.001, respectively), with corresponding OR[ER+] (95% CI) = 1.49 (1.16-1.90) for nulliparous vs. parous and 1.07 (1.03-1.11) per 5 years. Current combined menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use was associated with lower grade (p-trend<0.001), with OR [grade1] = 3.37 (2.69-4.21) for current vs. never users. Higher BMI was associated with lower ER-positivity and higher grade in premenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[ER+] = 0.80 (0.74-0.87) and OR[grade1] = 0.75 (0.63-0.88) per 5 units, and with higher PR-positivity and higher grade in postmenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[PR+] = 1.08 (1.03-1.14) and OR[grade 3] = 1.10 (1.04-1.17) per 5 units. Conclusion This pooled analysis of 15,731 cases showed that nulliparity, age at menopause, MHT, and BMI have independent, dose-response associations with ER, PR, and grade, clarifying patterns of etiologic heterogeneity. Associations with HER2, KI67 and TP53, or other risk factors did not meet our threshold for strong evidence.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.

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.