DOI: https://doi.org/10.22263/2312-4156.2019.3.61
Ganusevich O.N.1, Nesterovich T.N.1, Achinovich S.L.2, Fedorkevich I.V.2
The evaluation of pathomorphosis after neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer
1Gomel State Medical University, Gomel, Republic of Belarus
2Gomel Regional Oncologic Dispensary, Gomel, Republic of Belarus
Vestnik VGMU. 2019;18(3):61-67.
Abstract.
Objectives. To systematize the available data on the therapeutic pathomorphosis of breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST).
Material and methods. Russian- and English-speaking sources most fully covering this problem were analyzed and a registration card of a patient with breast cancer (BC) after the provided NAST was introduced into practice.
Results. Considering the increasing role of NAST in the treatment of patients with BC, it seems urgent to assess properly its effect. Currently, there are many systems for assessing therapeutic pathomorphosis. The most optimal system in the world is the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) system. The application of this system was begun in the Gomel Regional Clinical Oncologic Dispensary (GRCOD) in 2018. The use of this system is impossible without close co-operation of the clinical and morphological services. A histologist must fully possess the information about the primary tumor, the state of the regional lymph nodes, the given NAST. For the convenience of information transfer, we have introduced into practice the registration card of a BC patient after the provided NAST.
Conclusions. The evaluation of therapeutic pathomorphosis of breast cancer helps to assess the effectiveness of treatment and is an important prognostic factor.
Key words: breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, therapeutic pathomorphosis.
References
1. Ganusevich ON, Nesterovich TN, Fedorkevich IV. Current Approaches to Breast Cancer Therapy (from the St. Gallen Conference, 2017). Problemy Zdorov'ia Ekologii. 2018;(3):11-8. (In Russ.)
2. Sazonov SV, Kazantseva NV. Breast cancer. Modern content of concepts: therapeutic pathomorphosis, tumor response to chemotherapy, morphological regression of the tumor, disease prognosis. Vestn Ural Med Akad Nauki. 2016(3):85-96. (In Russ.)
3. Andreeva YuYu, Moskvina LV, Berezina TA, Podberezina YuL, Loktev SS, Frank GA, i dr. Methodology for the study of the operating material in breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy for the evaluation of residual tumor load (by RCB system). Arkhiv Patologii. 2016;78(2):41-6. (In Russ.)
4. Moskvina LV, Andreeva YuYu, Ilatovskaya ME, Matsionis AE, Frank GA, Zavalishina LE, i dr. Modern approach to diagnosis and assessment of the therapeutic effect of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Zlokachestven Opukholi. 2017;(1):38-41. (In Russ.)
5. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF, Boughey JC, Coles C, Curigliano G, et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(7):1280-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv161
6. Campbell JI, Yau C, Krass P, Moore D, Carey LA, Au A, et al. Comparison of Residual Cancer Burden, American Joint Committee on Cancer staging and Pathologic Complete Response in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;165(1):181-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4303-8
7. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, Yu X, Zhang Y, Liu M, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with Residual Cancer Burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr;35(10):1049-1060. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010
8. Corben AD, Abi-Raad R, Popa I, Teo CH, Macklin EA, Koerner FC, et al. Pathologic response and long-term follow-up in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison between classifications and their practical application. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Aug;137(8):1074-82. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0290-OA
9. Lisaeva AA, Vishnevskaya YaV, Roshchin EM, Komov DV, Kolyadina IV. Therapeutic pathomorphosis of malignant tumors: clinical and morphological criteria. Classifications. Predictive value of therapeutic pathomorphosis in breast cancer and other tumors. Opukholi Zhen Reproduktiv Sistemy. 2011;(4):19-24. (In Russ.)
10. Grabovoy AN, Tarasova TA, Koshubarova MV. Histological evaluation of tumor response to chemotherapy. Klin Onkologiia. 2012;(6):138-43. (In Russ.)
11. Cnegirev AA, Grigorenko AA. Therapeutic pathomorphosis as an indicator of the effectiveness of treatment and prognosis of breast cancer. Dal'nevostoch Med Zhurn. 2013;(1):134-7. (In Russ.)
12. Vallacha A, Haider G, Raja W, Kumar D. Quality of Breast Cancer Surgical Pathology Reports. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Mar;19(3):853-858. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.3.853
Information about authors:
Ganusevich O.N. – lecturer of the Chair of Oncology, Gomel State Medical University,
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2202-2254
Nesterovich T.N. – lecturer of the Chair of Oncology, Gomel State Medical University,
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5692-1042
Achinovich S.L. – head of the pathoanatomical department, Gomel Regional Oncologic Dispensary,
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0977-5481
Fedorkevich I.V. – head of the oncologic department of general oncology and rehabilitation, Gomel Regional Oncologic Dispensary,
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7695-8042
Correspondence address: Republic of Belarus, 246012, Gomel, 2 Meditsinskaya str., Gomel State Medical University, Chair of Oncology. E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищён от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра. – Tatyana N. Nesterovich.
