Explorer The BIG 2 . 04 MRC / EORTC SUPREMO Trial-Pathology quality assurance of a large phase 3 randomised international clinical trial of postmastectomy radiotherapy in intermediate-risk breast cancer

Introduction SUPREMO is a phase 3 randomised trial evaluating radiotherapy post-mastectomy for intermediaterisk breast cancer. 1688 patients were enrolled from 16 countries between 2006 and 2013. We report the results of central pathology review carried out for quality assurance. Patients and methods A single recut haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) tumour section was assessed by one of two reviewing pathologists, blinded to the originally reported pathology and patient data. Tumour type, grade and lymphovascular invasion were reviewed to assess if they met the inclusion criteria. Slides from potentially ineligible patients on central review were scanned and reviewed online together by the two pathologists and a consensus reached. A subset of 25 of these cases was double-reported independently by the pathologists prior to the online assessment. Results The major contributors to the trial were the UK (75%) and the Netherlands (10%). There is a striking difference in lymphovascular invasion (LVi) rates (41.6 vs. 15.1% (UK); p =\0.0001) and proportions of grade 3 carcinomas (54.0 vs. 42.0% (UK); p =\0.0001) on comparing local reporting with central review. There was no difference in the locally reported frequency of LVi rates in node-positive (N?) and node-negative (N-) subgroups (40.3 vs. 38.0%; p = 0.40) but a significant difference in the reviewed frequency (16.9 vs. 9.9%; p = 0.004). Of the Ncases, 104 (25.1%) would have been ineligible by initial central review Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4145-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. & J. S. Thomas jeremy.thomas@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk A. M. Hanby a.m.hanby@leeds.ac.uk N. Russell n.russell@nki.nl G. van Tienhoven g.vantienhoven@amc.uva.nl K. Riddle k.riddle@nhs.net N. Anderson n.anderson@ed.ac.uk D. A. Cameron d.cameron@ed.ac.uk J. M. S. Bartlett john.bartlett@oicr.on.ca T. Piper t.piper@igmm.ed.ac.uk C. Cunningham carrie.cunningham@ed.ac.uk P. Canney pg.canney@me.com I. H. Kunkler iankunkler@yahoo.com 1 Department of Pathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK 2 Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Postbus 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, Netherlands 4 Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands 5 Scottish Clinical Trials Research Unit, NHS National Services Scotland, Edinburgh EH12 9EB, UK 123 Breast Cancer Res Treat DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4145-4

[1]  J. Cintolo-Gonzalez,et al.  Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Dermatologic Surgery. , 2019, Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.].

[2]  Ian O Ellis,et al.  Review of the national external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for breast pathology in the UK , 2016, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[3]  S. Pinder,et al.  Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. , 2015, European journal of cancer.

[4]  C. Caldas,et al.  Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  J. Elmore,et al.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. , 2015, JAMA.

[6]  M. Teare,et al.  Comparison of Nottingham Prognostic Index and Adjuvant Online prognostic tools in young women with breast cancer: review of a single-institution experience , 2015, BMJ Open.

[7]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel , 2014, Histopathology.

[8]  I. Ellis,et al.  The prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast carcinoma , 2012, Cancer.

[9]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board , 2006, Cancer.

[10]  R W Blamey,et al.  Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

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

[12]  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.

[13]  N. Dallimore,et al.  Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast , 2000, Journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  L. Tabár,et al.  10-Year results after sector resection with or without postoperative radiotherapy for stage I breast cancer: a randomized trial. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  R. Blamey,et al.  A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  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.

[17]  J. Coindre,et al.  Obvious peritumoral emboli: an elusive prognostic factor reappraised. Multivariate analysis of 1320 node-negative breast cancers. , 1998, European journal of cancer.