Mammary cancer. Modern concepts of contents: medical pathomorphosis, tumor response to chemotherapy, morphological tumor regression, prognosis
DOI: 10.22138/2500-0918-2016-15-3-85-96
S.V. Sazonov, N.V. Kazantseva
Institute of Medical Cell Technologies, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation;
Ural State Medical University, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation
Abstract.
The accumulation of the results of the morphological manifestations of therapeutic pathomorphism led to the formation of understanding of a number of laws, the basic to the more or less stereotyped repetitive changes in the structure of tissues and tumor cells that researchers have tried not only to describe, but, somehow, organize and classify. A multivariate approach in the evaluation of therapeutic pathomorphism increases objectivity and predictive value of the method, but greatly complicates the conduct of the morphological study. At the same time, the accumulation of a large volume of medical pathomorphism data allowed in a multicenter study to analyze and select the most relevant indicators, which are essential for the evaluation and based on them to form ideas about the prognosis of the individual patient of the disease to plan and correct the subsequent stages of treatment. Determination of tumor response, the establishment of the degree of «minimal residual disease» is a universal approach that can be used in a variety of cancer.
Keywords:
breast cancer, medical pathomorphosis, pathologic response morphological regression, standardization research, prognosis
REFERENCES
1. Patologoanatomicheskaja diagnostika opuholej cheloveka. Rukovodstvo v dvuh tomah [Pathologic diagnosis of human tumors. Manual in two volumes]. Editors O.N. Krajewski, A.V. Smolyannikova. Moscow Medicine Publ. 1993, Vol. 1, 560 p. [In Russ.].
2. Schott A.F., Roubidoux M.A., Helvie M.A. et al. Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 2005. No. 92 (3), pp. 231-238.
3. Galahin K.A., Couric E.G. Lechebnyj patomorfoz zlokachestvennyh opuholej pishhevaritel'nogo trakta [Medical pathomorphosis malignant tumors of the digestive tract]. Kiev. 2000 Book-plus Publ., 176 p. [In Russ.].
4. Lushnikov E.F. Terapevticheskij patomorfoz opuholej cheloveka v prakticheskom i teoreticheskom aspektah [Therapeutic pathomorphosis human tumors in the practical and theoretical aspects]. Vestnik AMN SSSR – Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, 1976. No. 6, pp. 7-12. [In Russ.].
5. Lavnikova G.A. Gistologicheskij metod kolichestvennoj ocenki terapevticheskogo povrezhdenija opuholi [Histological quantification method therapeutic tumor lesions]. Moscow. 1979. Guidelines, 13 p. [In Russ.].
6. Frank G.A., Ilatovsky M.E., Andreyev J.J., Zavalishina L.E. Rol' i kriterii ocenki morfologicheskogo regressa raka molochnoj zhelezy posle neoad'juvantnoj terapii [The role of and criteria for evaluation of morphological regression of breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy]. Sovremennaja Onkologija – Journal of modern oncology. 2015. No. 17 (2), pp. 30-34. [In Russ.].
7. Miller I.D., Payne S., Ogston K.N. A new gistological grading system to assess response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. Int. J. Oncol. 2002. No. 20 (4). pp. 791-796.
8. Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A. et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000. No. 92 (3), pp.: 205-216.
9. Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer, 2009. No. 45, pp. 228-247.
10. Lakhani S.R., Ellis I.O., Schnitt S.J., Tan P.H., van de Vilver M.J. (Ed.): WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. IARC: Lyon. 2012.
11. Shimosato Y., Oboshi S., Baba K. Histological evaluation of effects of radiotherapy and chemo-therapy for carcinomas. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 1971. No. 1, pp. 19-35.
12. Vincent-Salomon A., Rousseau A., Jouve M. et al. Proliferation markers predictive of the pathological response and disease outcome of patients with breast carcinomas treated by anthracycline–based preoperative chemotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer. 2004. No. 40 (10). pp. 1502-1508.
13. Aas T., Geisler S., Eide G.E. et al. Predictive value of tumor cell proliferation in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2003. No. 39 (4). pp. 438-446.
14. Miller I.D., Payne S., Ogston K.N. A new gistological grading system to assess response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. Int. J. Oncol. 2002. No. 20 (4), pp. 791-796.
15. Penault-Llorca F., Abrial C., Raoelfils I. et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff's pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum. Pathol. 2008. No. 39, pp. 1221-1228.
16. Chollet P., Amat S., Cure H. et al. Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer. 2002. No. 86 (7), pp. 1041-1046.
17. Burcombe R.J., Makris A., Richman P.I. et al. Evaluation of ER, PgR, Her-2 and Ki-67 as predictors of response to neoadjuvantanthracycline chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer. 2005. No. 92 (1), pp. 147-155.
18. Puglisi F., Fontanella C., Amaroso V., et al. Current challenges in HER2-positive breast cancer. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2015. 1040-8428.
19. Hamy-Petit A.S., Belin L., Bonsang-Kitzis H., et al. Pathological complete response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancers before and after trastuzumab era: results from a real-life cohort. British Journal of Cancer.2016. No. 114, pp. 44-52.
20. Chang H. Trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010. No. 116 (12), pp. 2856-2867.
21. Hicks M., Macrae E., Abdel-Rasoul M., et al. Neoadjuvant dual HER2-targeted therapy with lapatinib and trastuzumab improves pathologic complete response in patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized prospective clinical trials. Oncologist. 2015. No. 20 (4), pp. 337-343.
22. Rouzier R., Mathieu M.C., Llombart-Cussac A. et al. The poor responsiveness of infiltrating lobular breast carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be explained by their biological profile. European Journal of Cancer. 2004. No 40. pp. 342-351.
23. von Minckwitz G., Untch M., Blohmer J.U., et al. Defenition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012. No. 30, pp. 1796-1804.
24. Brilliant A.A., Sazonov S.V. Changing the receptor status Group proliferative activity of breast carcinomas. Herald of Ural Medical Academic Science. 2013. No. 43 (1), pp. 61-63. [In Russ.].
25. Cristofanili M., Gonzalez-Angulo A., Sneige N. et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005. No. 23. pp. 41-48.
26. Cocquyt V.F., Blondeel P.N., Depypere H.T. et al. Different responses to preoperative chemotherapy for invasive lobular and invasive ductal breast carcinoma. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2003. No. 29. pp. 361-367.
27. Daidone M.G., Veneroni S., Benini E. et al. Biological markers as indicators of response to primary and adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 1999. No. 84. pp. 580-586.
28. Wolmark N., Wang J., Mamounas E. et al: Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: Nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J. Natl. CancerInst. Monogr. 2001. pp. 96-102.
29. Ognerubov N.A. Neoadjuvant therapy of locally advanced breast cancer. Diss. Dokt. med. Moscow. 1992. 45 p. [In Russ.].
30. Fisher E.R., Wang J., Bryant J. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002. No. 95. pp. 681-695.
31. Symmans W.F., Peintinger F., Hatzis C. et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007. No. 25 (28), pp. 4414-4422.
32. Peintinger F., Sinn B., Hatzis C., et al. Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod. Pathol. 2015. No. 28 (7), pp. 913-920.
33. Bossuyt V., Provenzano E., Symmans W. et al. Recommendation for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann. Oncol. 2015. No. 26 (7), pp. 1280-91.
34. Kaufmann M., Hortobagyi G.N., Goldhirsch A. et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006. No. 24. pp. 1940-1949.
35. Apple S.K., Suthar F. How do we measure a residual tumor size in histopathology (the gold standard) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast. 2006. No. 15 (1), pp. 370–376.
36. Carey L.A., Metzger R., Dees E.C. et al. American Joint Committee jn Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2005; 97 (15), pp. 1137-1142.
37. Andreyeva J.J., Moskvina L.V., Berezina T.A., Podberezin Y.L., Loktev S.S., Frank G.A. Metodika issledovanija operacionnogo materiala pri rake molochnoj zhelezy posle neoad'juvantnoj terapii dlja ocenki ostatochnoj opuholevoj nagruzki (po sisteme RCB) [Research Methodology surgical specimens in breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy for evaluation of residual tumor burden (on the RCB system)]. Arkhiv Patologii – Archives of Pathology. 2016. No. 78 (2), pp. 41-46. [In Russ.].
38. Bouzourene H., Bosman F.T., Seelentag W. et al. Importance of tumor regression assessment in predicting the outcome in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma who are treated with preoperative radiotherapy. Cancer. 2002. No. 94 (4), pp. 1121-1130.
39. Sarkaria I., Rizk N., Bains M. et al. Post-treatment endoscopic biopsy is a poor-predictor of pathologic response in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Ann. Surg. 2009. No. 249, pp. 764-767.
40. Rubbia-Brandt L., Giostra E., Brezault C. et al. Importance of histological tumor response assessment in predicting the outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver surgery. Ann. Oncol. 2007. No. 18 (2), pp. 299-304.
41. Meyer C., Kowarz E., Hofmann J., et al., New insights to the MLL recombinome of acute leukemias. Leukemia. 2009. Vol. 23. No. 8. pp. 1490-1499.
42. Abrial S.C., Penault-Llorca F., Delva R., et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2005. No. 94 (3), pp. 255-263.
43. Provenzano E., Bossuyt V., Viale G., et al. Residual Disease Characterization Working Group of the Breast International Group-North American Breast Cancer Group Collaboration. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. Mod. Pathol. 2015. No. 28 (9), pp. 1185-1201.
Authors
Sazonov Sergey V.
Ural State Medical University
620028, Repina str., 3, Yekaterinburg, Russia
prof-ssazonov@yandex.ru
Kazantseva Natalia V.
The Clinical Cancer Center of the Sverdlovsk region
620137, Vilonova str., 76a, Yekaterinburg, Russia
imct@celltechnologies.ru
Received — 18.07.2016
For citation:Sazonov S.V., Kazantseva N.V. Rak molochnoj zhelezy. Sovremennoe soderzhanie ponjatij: Lechebnyj Patomorfoz, Otvet opuholi na himioterapiju, Morfologicheskij regress opuholi, Prognoz zabolevanija [Mammary cancer. Modern concepts of contents: Medical pathomorphosis, Tumor response to chemotherapy, Morphological tumor regression, Prognosis]. Vestn. Ural. Med. Akad. Nauki. – Journal of Ural Medical Academic Science. 2016, no. 3, pp. 85–96. DOI: 10.22138/2500-0918-2016-15-3-85-96 [In Russ.]
