Lakhani, Sunil R.

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.

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’.

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.

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.