{"title":"Gross Evaluation of Breast Carcinomas Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Without Radio-opaque Clip Insertion.","authors":"Prarthna Shah, Sangeeta Desai, Tanuja Shet","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0464-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Gross evaluation of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy breast carcinoma is challenging when the primary tumor is not localized before therapy with a radio-opaque wire/clip, a situation common in resource-constrained settings.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To compare 2 grossing approaches in post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy breast carcinoma specimens to evaluate the sampling adequacy.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>Fifty breast carcinoma specimens were grossed in a 2-step manner. Tumor bed was identified using clinico-radiologic and gross correlation and 1 slice was selected as most representative (sample I). Subsequently, the entire tumor bed was submitted in grids of multiple slices (sample II). Agreement between methods was assessed using κ values.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Sample I prepared an average of 8 blocks per case while sample II prepared 26 blocks. Pathologic complete response (pCR) by both methods was calculated. Sample I documented 23 cases with pCR of which 21 were confirmed by sample II. The 2 cases missed by sample I had less than 5% residual tumor (residual cancer burden class I). Both cases were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and residual tumor was seen in the slices adjacent to the selected slice. The concordance between the 2 methods was 94% with κ value of 0.915 for sample I, indicating excellent correlation with sample II.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>The average cost of sample I was 33% of that of sample II and helped calculate the residual cancer burden with similar accuracy. However, in HER2-positive cases, pCR may be overestimated. Hence, we recommend sampling slices adjacent to the selected tumor slice. Further study using this method is essential due to its limited sample size and single-center design before considering implementation in the general population.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0464-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context.—: Gross evaluation of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy breast carcinoma is challenging when the primary tumor is not localized before therapy with a radio-opaque wire/clip, a situation common in resource-constrained settings.
Objective.—: To compare 2 grossing approaches in post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy breast carcinoma specimens to evaluate the sampling adequacy.
Design.—: Fifty breast carcinoma specimens were grossed in a 2-step manner. Tumor bed was identified using clinico-radiologic and gross correlation and 1 slice was selected as most representative (sample I). Subsequently, the entire tumor bed was submitted in grids of multiple slices (sample II). Agreement between methods was assessed using κ values.
Results.—: Sample I prepared an average of 8 blocks per case while sample II prepared 26 blocks. Pathologic complete response (pCR) by both methods was calculated. Sample I documented 23 cases with pCR of which 21 were confirmed by sample II. The 2 cases missed by sample I had less than 5% residual tumor (residual cancer burden class I). Both cases were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and residual tumor was seen in the slices adjacent to the selected slice. The concordance between the 2 methods was 94% with κ value of 0.915 for sample I, indicating excellent correlation with sample II.
Conclusions.—: The average cost of sample I was 33% of that of sample II and helped calculate the residual cancer burden with similar accuracy. However, in HER2-positive cases, pCR may be overestimated. Hence, we recommend sampling slices adjacent to the selected tumor slice. Further study using this method is essential due to its limited sample size and single-center design before considering implementation in the general population.
背景新辅助化疗后乳腺癌的大体评估具有挑战性,因为原发肿瘤在使用不透射线金属丝/夹治疗前尚未定位,这种情况在资源有限的环境中很常见:比较新辅助化疗后乳腺癌标本的两种取样方法,以评估取样的充分性:对 50 例乳腺癌标本进行两步粗检。根据临床放射学和大体相关性确定肿瘤床,并选择最具代表性的 1 个切片(样本 I)。随后,将整个瘤床分成多个切片的网格(样本 II)。使用κ值评估不同方法之间的一致性:样本 I 平均为每个病例制备了 8 个区块,而样本 II 则制备了 26 个区块。两种方法都计算了病理完全反应(pCR)。样本 I 记录了 23 例病理完全反应病例,其中 21 例经样本 II 确认。样本 I 漏检的 2 个病例的残留肿瘤低于 5%(残留癌负荷 I 级)。这两个病例均为人类表皮生长因子受体 2 (HER2) 阳性,并且在所选切片的邻近切片中发现了残余肿瘤。两种方法的一致性为 94%,样本 I 的 κ 值为 0.915,表明与样本 II 的相关性极佳:结论:样本 I 的平均成本是样本 II 的 33%,有助于计算残余癌症负担,准确性相似。然而,在HER2阳性病例中,pCR可能会被高估。因此,我们建议对所选肿瘤切片的邻近切片进行取样。由于这种方法的样本量有限,而且是单中心设计,因此在考虑将其应用于普通人群之前,有必要对其进行进一步研究。