[2021 update of the GEFPICS' recommendations for HER2 status assessment in invasive breast cancer in France]. / Mise à jour 2021 des recommandations du GEFPICS pour l'évaluation du statut HER2 dans les cancers infiltrants du sein en France.

The last international guidelines on HER2 determination in breast cancer have been updated in 2018 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists, on the basis of a twenty-year practice and results of numerous clinical trials. Moreover, the emerging HER2-low concept for 1+ and 2+ non amplified breast cancers lead to refine French practices for HER2 status assessment. The GEFPICS group, composed of expert pathologists, herein presents the latest French recommendations for HER2 status evaluation in breast cancer, taking into account the ASCO/CAP guidelines and introducing the HER2-low concept. In the era of personalized medicine, HER2 status assessment remains one of the most important biomarkers in breast cancer and its quality guaranties the optimal patients' care. French pathologists' commitment in theranostic biomarker quality is more than ever required to provide the most efficient cares in oncology.

[Pre-analytical stage for biomarker assessment in breast cancer: 2014 update of the GEFPICS' guidelines in France]. / Recommandations du GEFPICS concernant la phase pré-analytique pour l'évaluation de HER2 et des récepteurs hormonaux dans le cancer du sein : mise à jour 2014.

Biomarker assessment of breast cancer tumor samples is part of the routine workflow of pathology laboratories. International guidelines have recently been updated, with special regards to the pre-analytical steps that are critical for the quality of immunohistochemical and in situ hybridization procedures, whatever the biomarker analyzed. Fixation and specimen handling protocols must be standardized, validated and carefully tracked. Cooperation and training of the personnel involved in the specimen workflow (e.g. radiologists, surgeons, nurses, technicians and pathologists) are of paramount importance. The GEFPICS' update of the recommendations herein details and comments the different steps of the pre-analytical process. Application of these guidelines and participation to quality insurance programs are mandatory to ensure the correct evaluation of oncotheranostic biomarkers.

Management of patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia by vacuum-assisted core biopsy: a prospective assessment of the guidelines used at our institution.

BACKGROUND: Because of underestimation, surgical excision is recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on directional vacuum-assisted biopsies. The following guidelines have been established according to our retrospective study published in 2008: excision for lesions ≥ 21 mm, follow-up for lesions <6 mm with complete removal of microcalcifications, and follow-up or excision for 6 to 21-mm lesions with respectively less or >2 atypical ductal hyperplasia foci. METHODS AND RESULTS: These guidelines were assessed in a prospective series of 124 patients with a median follow-up of 30 months. Conformity rate was 92%. Upgrading was 28% (15 of 53 patients) for conformed surgery and absent for surgery performed beyond the scope of guidelines. For the patients with benign result at surgery (n = 38) or just followed (n = 61), 3 cancers occurred in either breast at 1 to 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: These convenient guidelines can safely spare surgery for a subset of patients. However, annual mammographic follow-up is recommended since the risk of subsequent cancer remains high for both breasts.

Multidisciplinarity and medical decision, impact for patients with cancer: sociological assessment of two tumour committees' organization.

PURPOSE: Medical practices in oncology are expected to be multidisciplinary, yet few articles studied how this may be concretely applied. In the present study, we evaluated the organization of two multidisciplinary committees, one for breast cancer and one for sarcoma, in a French Comprehensive Cancer Centre. METHODS: Both tumours were specifically chosen so as to emphasise substantial differences in relation with incidence, histological subtypes, management strategy, and scientific evidence. Between 2003 and 2004, 404 decision processes were observed, 210 for sarcoma (26 meetings) and 194 for breast cancer (10 meetings). The number of physicians who took part in the discussions and their medical specialties were systematically noted as well as the number of contradictory discussions, medical specialties represented in these contradictory discussions and the topics of contradiction. The last measured data was whether the final committee's decision was in conformity with the referent preferences or not. All these measures were related to the referent's medical speciality and working place, to the stage of the disease and to the disease management stage. RESULTS: Committees' specificities concerned their organization, referent's medical specialties, the number of participants in discussions and their medical specialties. Discussions in the sarcoma committee tended to be more multidisciplinary, involving more specialties. Initial strategy proposal for one patient was modified during the discussions for 86 patients out of 210 (41%) and for 62 out of 194 (32%) respectively for sarcoma and breast cancer. However, there was no significant difference in the rate of contradictory discussions between breast cancer and sarcoma committees (32% versus 41% respectively; P = 0.08). The rates of contradictory discussions were similar for localized cancers, local relapse and metastasis disease (37%, 41% and 34% respectively; P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reports more than 30% of changes concerning strategy for patient with cancer due to multidisciplinary discussions. This indicates that, providing tumour committees are adapted to the pathologies' characteristics, they can promote a collective and multidisciplinary approach to oncology.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for HER2 testing of breast cancer patients in France.

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing diagnostic strategies for determining the HER2 status of invasive breast carcinomas, as an indication for trastuzumab at metastatic relapse. METHODS: A decision tree compared five strategies distinguished by (i) the use of immunohistochemical (IHC) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques, and (ii) the test schedule (at initial diagnosis or metastatic relapse). Most cost and effectiveness data came from a French multicentric study of 2,045 patients from eight hospitals. We were not able to select final criteria for trastuzumab effectiveness, because published data rely on IHC techniques not used in France (i.e., HercepTest). We, therefore, selected two intermediate criteria for inappropriate treatment at relapse, that is, patients with HER2-amplified tumors not receiving trastuzumab (Criterion 1) and HER2-nonamplified tumors improperly treated with trastuzumab (Criterion 2). Sensitivity analyses were then performed to assess the robustness of the results to (i) discount rate, (ii) cost of FISH, and (iii) tissue fixation technique. RESULTS: The strategy using IHC at diagnosis was dominated by the four other strategies. Among these approaches, the only efficient strategy for both criteria was IHC used alone at metastatic relapse; strategies using FISH, or IHC followed by FISH on IHC2+ cases were efficient for Criterion 1, whereas IHC followed by FISH on IHC2+ and 3+ cases was efficient for Criterion 2. CONCLUSIONS: Determining HER2 status at diagnosis, as an indication for trastuzumab at metastatic relapse, incurs substantial incremental costs, which do not appear to be justified. No other strategy can be excluded at first.