Sanders, Melinda E.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)–positive (AR+) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR+ (≥10%) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or TNBC] with AR+ breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants. Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR+ tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists.

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.

BACKGROUNDWomen with atypical hyperplasia (AH) on breast biopsy have a substantially increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Here the BC risk for the extent and subtype of AH is reported for 2 separate cohorts.METHODSAll samples containing AH were included from 2 cohorts of women with benign breast disease (Mayo Clinic and Nashville). Histology review quantified the number of foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH). The BC risk was stratified for the number of AH foci within AH subtypes.RESULTSThe study included 708 Mayo AH subjects and 466 Nashville AH subjects. In the Mayo cohort, an increasing number of foci of AH was associated with a significant increase in the risk of BC both for ADH (relative risks of 2.61, 5.21, and 6.36 for 1, 2, and ≥3 foci, respectively; P for linear trend = .006) and for ALH (relative risks of 2.56, 3.50, and 6.79 for 1, 2, and ≥3 foci, respectively; P for linear trend = .001). In the Nashville cohort, the relative risks of BC for ADH were 2.70, 5.17, and 15.06 for 1, 2, and ≥3 foci, respectively (P for linear trend < .001); for ALH, the relative risks also increased but not significantly (2.61, 3.48, and 4.02, respectively; P = .148). When the Mayo and Nashville samples were combined, the risk increased significantly for 1, 2, and ≥3 foci: the relative risks were 2.65, 5.19, and 8.94, respectively, for ADH (P < .001) and 2.58, 3.49, and 4.97, respectively, for ALH (P = .001).CONCLUSIONSIn 2 independent cohort studies of benign breast disease, the extent of atypia stratified the long‐term BC risk for ADH and ALH. Cancer 2016;122:2971‐2978. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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.