Pathological non-response to chemotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting of breast cancer: an inter-institutional study.

To identify markers of non-response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) that could be used in the adjuvant setting. Sixteen pathologists of the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology reviewed the core biopsies of breast cancers treated with NAC and recorded the clinico-pathological findings (histological type and grade; estrogen, progesterone receptors, and HER2 status; Ki67; mitotic count; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; necrosis) and data regarding the pathological response in corresponding surgical resection specimens. Analyses were carried out in a cohort of 490 cases by comparing the groups of patients showing pathological complete response (pCR) and partial response (pPR) with the group of non-responders (pathological non-response: pNR). Among other parameters, the lobular histotype and the absence of inflammation were significantly more common in pNR (p < 0.001). By ROC curve analyses, cut-off values of 9 mitosis/2 mm(2) and 18% of Ki67-positive cells best discriminated the pNR and pCR + pPR categories (p = 0.018 and < 0.001, respectively). By multivariable analysis, only the cut-off value of 9 mitosis discriminated the different response categories (p = 0.036) in the entire cohort. In the Luminal B/HER2- subgroup, a mitotic count <9, although not statistically significant, showed an OR of 2.7 of pNR. A lobular histotype and the absence of inflammation were independent predictors of pNR (p = 0.024 and <0.001, respectively). Classical morphological parameters, such as lobular histotype and inflammation, confirmed their predictive value in response to NAC, particularly in the Luminal B/HER2- subgroup, which is a challenging breast cancer subtype from a therapeutic point of view. Mitotic count could represent an additional marker but has a poor positive predictive value.

Consistency in recognizing microinvasion in breast carcinomas is improved by immunohistochemistry for myoepithelial markers.

Microinvasion is the smallest morphologically identifiable stage of invasion. Its presence and distinction from in situ carcinoma may have therapeutic implications, and clinical staging also requires the recognition of this phenomenon. Microinvasion is established on the basis of several morphological criteria, which may be difficult and not perfectly reproducible among pathologists. The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of diagnosing microinvasion in the breast on traditional haematoxylin and eosin (HE) stained slides and to evaluate whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) for myoepithelial markers could improve this. Digital images were generated from representative areas of 50 cases stained with HE and IHC for myoepithelial markers. Cases were specifically selected from the spectrum of in situ to microinvasive cancers. Twenty-eight dedicated breast pathologists assessed these cases at different magnifications through a web-based platform in two rounds: first HE only and after a washout period by both HE and IHC. Consistency in the recognition of microinvasion significantly improved with the use of IHC. Concordance rates increased from 0.85 to 0.96, kappa from 0.5 to 0.85, the number of cases with 100% agreement rose from 9/50 to 25/50 with IHC and the certainty of diagnosis also increased. The use of IHC markedly improves the consistency of identifying microinvasion. This corroborates previous recommendations to use IHC for myoepithelial markers to clarify cases where uncertainty exists about the presence of microinvasion. Microinvasive carcinoma is a rare entity, and seeking a second opinion may avoid overdiagnosis.