James L. Connolly

Abstract Background. —Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. Materials and Methods. —Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. Results and Conclusions. —Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c- erb B-2 (Her2- neu ), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-α, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The revision of the eighth edition of the primary tumor, lymph node, and metastasis (TNM) classification of the American Joint Commission of Cancer (AJCC) for breast cancer was determined by a multidisciplinary team of breast cancer experts. The panel recognized the need to incorporate biologic factors, such as tumor grade, proliferation rate, estrogen and progesterone receptor expression, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression, and gene expression prognostic panels into the staging system. AJCC levels of evidence and guidelines for all tumor types were followed as much as possible. The panel felt that, to maintain worldwide value, the tumor staging system should remain based on TNM anatomic factors. However, the recognition of the prognostic influence of grade, hormone receptor expression, and HER2 amplification mandated their inclusion into the staging system. The value of commercially available, gene-based assays was acknowledged and prognostic input added. Tumor biomarkers and low Oncotype DX recurrence scores can alter prognosis and stage. These updates are expected to provide additional precision and flexibility to the staging system and were based on the extent of published information and analysis of large, as yet unpublished databases. The eighth edition of the AJCC TNM staging system, thus, provides a flexible platform for prognostic classification based on traditional anatomic factors, which can be modified and enhanced using patient biomarkers and multifactorial prognostic panel data. The eighth edition remains the worldwide basis for breast cancer staging and will incorporate future online updates to remain timely and relevant. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:290-303. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between pathologic margin status and outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 533 patients with International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage I or II breast cancer who had assessable margins, who received at least 60 Gy to the primary tumor bed, and who had more than 8 years of potential follow-up. Each margin was scored (according to the presence of invasive or in situ disease that touched the inked surgical margin) as one of the following: negative, close, focally positive, or extensively positive. Outcome at 8 years was calculated using crude rates of first site of failure. A polychotomous logistic regression analysis was performed. Median follow-up time was 127 months. RESULTS: At 8 years, patients with close margins and those with negative margins both had a rate of local recurrence (LR) of 7%. Patients with extensively positive margins had an LR rate of 27%, whereas patients with focally positive margins had an intermediate rate of LR of 14%. In the polychotomous logistic regression model, margin status and the use of systemic therapy were the only two variables that had significant effects on the risk ratio of LR to remaining alive and free of disease. Among the 45 patients with focally positive margins who received systemic therapy, the crude LR rate was 7% at 8 years (95% confidence interval, 1% to 20%). CONCLUSION: Pathologic margin status and the use of adjuvant systemic therapy are the most important factors associated with LR among patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The relationships among the involvement of tumor at the final margins of resection, the presence of an extensive intraductal component (EIC), and the risk of local recurrence are important considerations in patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer but have not been defined adequately. METHODS: Between 1982 and 1985, 885 patients were treated for clinical Stage I or II invasive breast cancer. The study population was limited to 181 patients with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma who received a radiation dose to the surgical site of 60 Gy or greater, whose final microscopic margins of resection were evaluable, and who had at least 5 years of follow-up. A positive margin was defined as tumor present at the inked margin of resection, a close margin as tumor within 1 mm of the inked margin, and a negative margin as no tumor within 1 mm of the inked margin. A focally positive margin was defined as tumor at the margin in three or fewer low-power fields. In 157 patients (87%), the tumor was evaluable for the presence or absence of an EIC. The median follow-up was 86 months. RESULTS: In 12 of 181 patients (7%), a recurrence developed at or near the primary site (true recurrence/marginal miss [TR/MM]) within 5 years. The 5-year rate of TR/MM (with 95% confidence intervals) among patients with negative, close, focally positive, and more than focally positive margins was 0% (0-4%), 4% (0-20%), 6% (1-17%) and 21% (10-37%), respectively. Patients with positive margins also were more likely to have a distant failure within 5 years (14%, 8%, 25%, and 32% in the four groups, respectively). However, patients with positive margins more often had positive axillary lymph nodes than patients with negative or close margins (59% vs. 38%, P < 0.02). The 5-year rate of TR/MM was 20% for patients with an EIC-positive tumor and 7% for patients with an EIC-negative tumor. However, among the 127 patients with an EIC-negative tumor, the 5-year rate of TR/MM was less than 10% in all margin groups. Among the 30 patients with an EIC-positive tumor, the 5-year rate of TR/MM was 0% when margins were negative or close but 50% when margins were more than focally positive. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide support for the use of breast-conserving surgery and breast irradiation in all patients with uninvolved margins, whether the tumor is EIC-positive or EIC-negative. This study suggests that breast-conserving therapy (including a radiation boost to the primary site) also may be a reasonable option for some patients with an EIC-negative tumor and margin involvement.