RESUMEN
AIMS: Over 50% of breast cancer cases are "Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) low breast cancer (BC)", characterized by HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores of 1+ or 2+ alongside no amplification on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing. The development of new anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for treating HER2-low breast cancers illustrates the importance of accurately assessing HER2 status, particularly HER2-low breast cancer. In this study we evaluated the performance of a deep-learning (DL) model for the assessment of HER2, including an assessment of the causes of discordances of HER2-Null between a pathologist and the DL model. We specifically focussed on aligning the DL model rules with the ASCO/CAP guidelines, including stained cells' staining intensity and completeness of membrane staining. METHODS AND RESULTS: We trained a DL model on a multicentric cohort of breast cancer cases with HER2-IHC scores (n = 299). The model was validated on two independent multicentric validation cohorts (n = 369 and n = 92), with all cases reviewed by three senior breast pathologists. All cases underwent a thorough review by three senior breast pathologists, with the ground truth determined by a majority consensus on the final HER2 score among the pathologists. In total, 760 breast cancer cases were utilized throughout the training and validation phases of the study. The model's concordance with the ground truth (ICC = 0.77 [0.68-0.83]; Fisher P = 1.32e-10) is higher than the average agreement among the three senior pathologists (ICC = 0.45 [0.17-0.65]; Fisher P = 2e-3). In the two validation cohorts, the DL model identifies 95% [93% - 98%] and 97% [91% - 100%] of HER2-low and HER2-positive tumours, respectively. Discordant results were characterized by morphological features such as extended fibrosis, a high number of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, and necrosis, whilst some artefacts such as nonspecific background cytoplasmic stain in the cytoplasm of tumour cells also cause discrepancy. CONCLUSION: Deep learning can support pathologists' interpretation of difficult HER2-low cases. Morphological variables and some specific artefacts can cause discrepant HER2-scores between the pathologist and the DL model.
Asunto(s)
Biomarcadores de Tumor , Neoplasias de la Mama , Aprendizaje Profundo , Inmunohistoquímica , Receptor ErbB-2 , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Mama/metabolismo , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Receptor ErbB-2/genética , Femenino , Biomarcadores de Tumor/análisis , Biomarcadores de Tumor/metabolismo , Patólogos , Hibridación Fluorescente in Situ , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS after treatment, and stage and subtype of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Multinational, pooled cohort study. SETTING: Four large international cohorts. PARTICIPANTS: Patient level data on 47 695 women with a diagnosis of pure, primary DCIS between 1999 and 2017 in the Netherlands, UK, and US who underwent surgery, either breast conserving or mastectomy, often followed by radiotherapy or endocrine treatment, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS estimated in relation to DCIS size and margin status, and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses with multiple imputed data RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 3.2%. In women who underwent breast conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy, only adjusted risks for ipsilateral DCIS were significantly increased for larger DCIS (20-49 mm) compared with DCIS <20 mm (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.72). Risks for both ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS were significantly higher with involved compared with clear margins (invasive breast cancer 1.40, 1.07 to 1.83; DCIS 1.39, 1.04 to 1.87). Use of adjuvant endocrine treatment was not significantly associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to treatment with breast conserving surgery only (0.86, 0.62 to 1.21). In women who received breast conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy, higher DCIS grade was not significantly associated with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, only with a higher risk of ipsilateral DCIS (grade 1: 1.42, 1.08 to 1.87; grade 3: 2.17, 1.66 to 2.83). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with lower risk (per year) of ipsilateral DCIS (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99) but not ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Women with large DCIS (≥50 mm) more often developed stage III and IV ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to women with DCIS <20 mm. No such association was found between involved margins and higher stage of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Associations between larger DCIS and hormone receptor negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and involved margins and hormone receptor negative ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were found. CONCLUSIONS: The association of DCIS size and margin status with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS was small. When these two factors were added to other known risk factors in multivariable models, clinicopathological risk factors alone were found to be limited in discriminating between low and high risk DCIS.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/epidemiología , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/cirugía , Estudios de Cohortes , Mastectomía , Mastectomía Segmentaria , Factores de Riesgo , Hormonas , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/epidemiología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/diagnóstico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/cirugíaRESUMEN
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely accepted as a precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is considered a risk factor for invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), and it is unclear whether LCIS is also a precursor. Therefore, it would be expected that similar risk factors predispose to both DCIS and IDC, but not necessarily LCIS and ILC. This study examined associations with risk factors using data from 3075 DCIS cases, 338 LCIS cases, and 1584 controls aged 35-60, recruited from the UK-based GLACIER and ICICLE case-control studies between 2007 and 2012. Analysis showed that breastfeeding in parous women was protective against DCIS and LCIS, which is consistent with research on invasive breast cancer (IBC). Additionally, long-term use of HRT in post-menopausal women increased the risk of DCIS and LCIS, with a stronger association in LCIS, similar to the association with ILC. Contrary to findings with IBC, parity and the number of births were not protective against DCIS or LCIS, while oral contraceptives showed an unexpected protective effect. These findings suggest both similarities and differences in risk factors for DCIS and LCIS compared to IBC and that there may be justification for increased breast surveillance in post-menopausal women taking long-term HRT.
RESUMEN
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of breast cancers and has distinct characteristics compared with the more common invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Studies have shown that ILC may be less sensitive to chemotherapy than IDC, with lower rates of complete pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, but it is not clear how this affects long-term survival. Patients at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust between 1975 and 2016 diagnosed with ER+ IDC or ER+ ILC were eligible for inclusion. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used for analysis. There was no difference in overall survival comparing ER+ ILC to ER+ IDC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.04) with a median follow-up time of 8.3 years compared to 8.4 years in IDC. However, ER+HER2- ILC had worse survival compared to ER+HER2- IDC in those that received chemotherapy (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.01). Here, median follow-up time was 7.0 years in ILC compared to 8.1 years in IDC. These results indicate worse overall survival after chemotherapy (neo-adjuvant and adjuvant) in ILC compared to ER+HER2- IDC even when correcting for tumour grade, age, size, and nodal involvement, but validation is needed in a larger study population.