The path to a better biomarker: application of a risk management framework for the implementation of PD-L1 and TILs as immuno-oncology biomarkers in breast cancer clinical trials and daily practice.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD-1/PD-L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD-L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD-L1 assay performance and inter-reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides and have shown reliable inter-reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD-L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD-L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno-oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition-based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk-management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno-therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD-L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs.

PURPOSE: To estimate the potential near-term population impact of alternative second opinion breast biopsy pathology interpretation strategies. METHODS: Decision analysis examining 12-month outcomes of breast biopsy for nine breast pathology interpretation strategies in the U.S. health system. Diagnoses of 115 practicing pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study were compared to reference-standard-consensus diagnoses with and without second opinions. Interpretation strategies were defined by whether a second opinion was sought universally or selectively (e.g., 2nd opinion if invasive). Main outcomes were the expected proportion of concordant breast biopsy diagnoses, the proportion involving over- or under-interpretation, and cost of care in U.S. dollars within one-year of biopsy. RESULTS: Without a second opinion, 92.2% of biopsies received a concordant diagnosis. Concordance rates increased under all second opinion strategies, and the rate was highest (95.1%) and under-treatment lowest (2.6%) when all biopsies had second opinions. However, over-treatment was lowest when second opinions were sought selectively for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia (1.8 vs. 4.7% with no 2nd opinions). This strategy also had the lowest projected 12-month care costs ($5.907 billion vs. $6.049 billion with no 2nd opinions). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion strategies could lower overall care costs while reducing both over- and under-treatment. The most accurate cost-saving strategy required second opinions for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia.

Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception.

AIMS: To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. RESULTS: Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

In vivo assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ grade: a model incorporating dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted breast MR imaging parameters.

PURPOSE: To develop a model incorporating dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features to differentiate high-nuclear-grade (HNG) from non-HNG ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board and requirement for informed consent was waived. A total of 55 pure DCIS lesions (19 HNG, 36 non-HNG) in 52 women who underwent breast MR imaging at 1.5 T with both DCE and DW imaging (b = 0 and 600 sec/mm(2)) were retrospectively reviewed. The following lesion characteristics were recorded or measured: DCE morphology, DCE maximum lesion size, peak initial enhancement at 90 seconds, worst-curve delayed enhancement kinetics, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at DW imaging with b values of 0 and 600 sec/mm(2), and T2 signal effects (measured with CNR at b = 0 sec/mm(2)). Univariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to identify MR imaging features that optimally discriminated HNG from non-HNG DCIS. Discriminative abilities of models were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: HNG lesions exhibited larger mean maximum lesion size (P = .02) and lower mean CNR for images with b value of 600 sec/mm(2) (P = .004), allowing discrimination of HNG from non-HNG DCIS (AUC = 0.71 for maximum lesion size, AUC = 0.70 for CNR at b = 600 sec/mm(2)). Differences in CNR for images with b value of 0 sec/mm(2) (P = .025) without corresponding differences in ADC values were observed between HNG and non-HNG lesions. Peak initial enhancement was the only kinetic variable to approach significance (P = .05). No differences in lesion morphology (P = .11) or worst-curve delayed enhancement kinetics (P = .97) were observed. A multivariate model combining CNR for images with b value of 600 sec/mm(2) and maximum lesion size most significantly discriminated HNG from non-HNG (AUC = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The preliminary findings suggest that DCE and DW MR imaging features may aid in identifying patients with high-risk DCIS. Further study may yield a model combining MR characteristics with histopathologic data to facilitate lesion-specific targeted therapies. © RSNA, 2012.