The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment.

BACKGROUND It is well known that there is considerable inter-observer variability in assessment of the pathological parameters that are used to select node-negative breast cancer patients for adjuvant systemic treatment. There are only limited data available as to in how many patients this leads to differences in treatment decisions. METHODS Clinical and pathological data of 694 patients <61 years with primary unilateral T1-4N0M0 breast cancer were analysed. Grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status were first assessed locally; subsequent central re-evaluation of these parameters was carried out. Clinicopathological low or high risk was assessed using national Dutch guidelines and the Adjuvant! Online (www.adjuvantonline.com). RESULTS The local pathological examination was discordant with central review for grade, ER and HER2 in 28% (kappa 0.56; grade 2 tumours 35% discordant), 5% (kappa 0.85) and 4% (kappa 0.81) of patients, respectively. If clinical risk were assessed based on Dutch guidelines or Adjuvant! Online, respectively, 15% (one of seven patients; kappa 0.70) or 8% (kappa 0.83) of patients would have been assigned to a different clinical risk group. CONCLUSION Inter-observer variation in pathological examination of breast carcinomas results in significant differences in grade, ER status, HER2 status, clinicopathological risk and subsequently in adjuvant systemic treatment advice.

[1]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[2]  Leslie W Dalton,et al.  Histologic Grading of Breast Cancer: Linkage of Patient Outcome with Level of Pathologist Agreement , 2000, Modern Pathology.

[3]  A. Clayden,et al.  Observer variation in histological grading of breast cancer. , 1989, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[5]  S. Pinder,et al.  Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. , 1995, Human pathology.

[6]  L. Huo HER2 Testing by Local, Central, and Reference Laboratories in Specimens From the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 Intergroup Adjuvant Trial , 2007 .

[7]  Peter A Kaufman,et al.  Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  R. Gelber,et al.  Meeting highlights: international consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  M. Kattan,et al.  A tool for predicting breast carcinoma mortality in women who do not receive adjuvant therapy , 2004, Cancer.

[10]  Wim H van Harten,et al.  Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[11]  M. Cronin,et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  R W Blamey,et al.  Survival of invasive breast cancer according to the Nottingham Prognostic Index in cases diagnosed in 1990-1999. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[13]  W. Pieterse,et al.  Staging of breast cancer with PET/CT , 2008 .

[14]  Greg Yothers,et al.  Real-world performance of HER2 testing--National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  A. Gad,et al.  Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists from 12 countries in diagnosing breast disease and reporting prognostic features of carcinomas , 1999, Virchows Archiv.

[16]  Karen A Gelmon,et al.  Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  M. Fernö,et al.  Histologic grading in breast cancer--reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group. , 2000, Acta oncologica.

[19]  P. Ravdin,et al.  Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2007, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[21]  M J Gaffey,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. , 1995, American journal of clinical pathology.

[22]  P. Neven,et al.  Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  I. O. Ellis,et al.  Confirmation of a prognostic index in primary breast cancer. , 1987, British Journal of Cancer.

[24]  R. Gelber,et al.  Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[25]  S. Schnitt Estrogen receptor testing of breast cancer in current clinical practice: what's the question? , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  Harold C. Sox,et al.  National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Geriatric Assessment Methods for Clinical Decision‐making , 1988 .

[27]  K. Kunze,et al.  Histological grading of breast cancer. Interobserver, reproducibility and prognostic significance. , 1990, Pathology, research and practice.

[28]  R. Tamimi,et al.  Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  J. Peterse,et al.  Causes of inconsistency in diagnosing and classifying intraductal proliferations of the breast. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. , 2000, European journal of cancer.

[30]  Y Wang,et al.  Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials , 2005, The Lancet.

[31]  C. Giardina,et al.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[32]  C. Elston,et al.  Disease of the breast , 1998 .

[33]  D. L. Page Interobserver Agreement and Reproducibility in Classification of Invasive Breast Carcinoma: An NCI Breast Cancer Family Registry Study , 2007 .

[34]  Robert J. Mayer,et al.  National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[35]  Hanina Hibshoosh,et al.  Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[36]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[37]  A. Hart,et al.  Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.