Ann Surg Treat Res.  2019 Nov;97(5):223-229. 10.4174/astr.2019.97.5.223.

Identifying breast cancer patients who require a double-check of preoperative core needle biopsy and postoperative surgical specimens to determine the molecular subtype of their tumor

• Park JH
• Kim HY
• Jung YJ
• Kim DI
• Kim JY
• Paik HJ

• KMID: 2461897
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2019.97.5.223

Abstract

PURPOSE
Core needle biopsy (CNB) is a widely used procedure for breast cancer diagnosis and analyzing results of immunohistochemistry (IHC). Several studies have shown concordance or discordance in IHC results between CNB and surgical specimens (SS). A double-check (CNB and SS) is inefficient and costly to perform a double-check on all patients. Therefore, it is important to determine which patients would benefit from a double-check.
METHODS
We collected the medical records of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital between April 2009 and June 2018 (n = 620). Molecular subtypes were classified as follows by hormone receptors (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2): HR+/HER2+, HR+/HER2−, HR−/HER2+, HR−/HER2−. Clinicopathological factors including age, obesity, histological grade, preoperative CEA, CA15-3, T stage, N stage, and menopausal status were assessed to determine whether they were associated with subtype change.
RESULTS
Increasing histological grade (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR], 3.693; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.941-7.025), preoperative CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL (P =0.042; OR, 2.399; 95% CI, 1.009-5.707) and higher T stage (P = 0.015; OR, 2.241; 95% CI, 1.152-4.357) were significantly associated with subtype change. On multivariable analyses, subtype changes were more common in high-grade breast cancer (P < 0.001; OR, 1.077; 95% CI, 1.031-1.113) and CEA ≥ 5 (P = 0.032; OR, 2.658; 95% CI, 1.088-6.490).
CONCLUSION
Patients with moderate- to high-grade tumors or CEA ≥ 5 ng/mL are required a double-check to determine the molecular subtype of breast cancer.

Keyword

Adjuvant; Biopsy; Breast neoplasms; Chemotherapy; Immunohistochemistry; Large-core needle

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle*
Breast Neoplasms*
Breast*
Busan
Diagnosis
Drug Therapy
Epidermal Growth Factor
Gyeongsangnam-do
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Medical Records
Obesity
Odds Ratio
Epidermal Growth Factor

Reference

1. Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P, A'Hern R, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol. 2009; 20:1948–1952.

2. Lorgis V, Algros MP, Villanueva C, Chaigneau L, Thierry-Vuillemin A, Nguyen T, et al. Discordance in early breast cancer for tumour grade, estrogen receptor, progesteron receptors and human epidermal receptor-2 status between core needle biopsy and surgical excisional primary tumour. Breast. 2011; 20:284–287.

3. Burge CN, Chang HR, Apple SK. Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens? Breast. 2006; 15:167–172.

4. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes--dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22:1736–1747.

5. Polyak K. Heterogeneity in breast cancer. J Clin Invest. 2011; 121:3786–3788.

6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: breast cancer [Internet]. Fort Wathington (PA): National Comprehensive Cancer Network;2016. cited 2019 Jan 18. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf.

7. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Pan HC, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012; 379:432–444.

8. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011; 378:771–784.

9. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, Press M, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:1273–1283.

10. You K, Park S, Ryu JM, Kim I, Lee SK, Yu J, et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy and surgical specimens in determining intrinsic biological subtypes of breast cancer with immunohistochemistry. J Breast Cancer. 2017; 20:297–303.

11. Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152:238–246.

12. Pettine S, Place R, Babu S, Williard W, Kim D, Carter P. Stereotactic breast biopsy is accurate, minimally invasive, and cost effective. Am J Surg. 1996; 171:474–476.

13. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26 Suppl 5:v8–v30.

14. Chen X, Sun L, Mao Y, Zhu S, Wu J, Huang O, et al. Preoperative core needle biopsy is accurate in determining molecular subtypes in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013; 13:390.

15. Arens N, Bleyl U, Hildenbrand R. HER2/neu, p53, Ki67, and hormone receptors do not change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Virchows Arch. 2005; 446:489–496.

16. Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, Shen K. Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 134:957–967.

17. Berghuis AMS, van Deurzen CHM, Koffijberg H, Terstappen LWMM, Sleijfer S, IJzerman MJ. Real-world data on discordance between estrogen, progesterone, and HER2 receptor expression on diagnostic tumor biopsy versus tumor resection material. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 175:451–458.

18. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998; 11:155–168.

19. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31:3997–4013.

20. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13:2329–2334.

21. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:736–750.

22. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, et al. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14:1368–1376.

23. World Health Organaization. International Obesity TaskForce. The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Sydney: Health Communications Australia;2000.

24. Duffy MJ. Serum tumor markers in breast cancer: are they of clinical value? Clin Chem. 2006; 52:345–351.

25. Molina R, Auge JM, Farrus B, Zanon G, Pahisa J, Munoz M, et al. Prospective evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) in patients with primary locoregional breast cancer. Clin Chem. 2010; 56:1148–1157.

26. Li X, Dai D, Chen B, Tang H, Xie X, Wei W. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of cancer antigen 15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in breast cancer: a meta-analysis including 12,993 patients. Dis Markers. 2018; 2018:9863092.

27. Shao Y, Sun X, He Y, Liu C, Liu H. Elevated levels of serum tumor markers CEA and CA15-3 are prognostic parameters for different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0133830.

28. Park BW, Oh JW, Kim JH, Park SH, Kim KS, Kim JH, et al. Preoperative CA 15-3 and CEA serum levels as predictor for breast cancer outcomes. Ann Oncol. 2008; 19:675–681.

29. Stieber P, Nagel D, Blankenburg I, Heinemann V, Untch M, Bauerfeind I, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of CA 15-3 and CEA in the early detection of metastatic breast cancer-A retrospective analysis of kinetics on 743 breast cancer patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2015; 448:228–231.

30. Gunczler P, Ogris E, Maca S, Danmayr E. Tumor markers in breast cancer: on the diagnostic value of serum determinations in clinical freedom from tumor and manifest disease. Onkologie. 1989; 12:209–214.