EVALUATION OF MORPHOLOGICAL AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL CHANGES OF BREAST CARCINOMAS AFTER NEOADJUVANT SYSTEMIC THERAPY

Complete clinical response (determined by palpation, instrumental methods, and macroscopic examination) does not always imply the achievement of pathologic complete response. Correlation coefficient between complete clinical and complete pathologic responses is 0.6–0.7.

 Objective: to choose an optimal method for the assessment of residual tumor that will provide objective information on the efficacy of various neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) regimens.

Materials and methods. We investigated trepanobiopsy samples of breast tumors collected prior to NST initiation and tissue samples collected during surgery after NST completion. The following parameters were evaluated: tumor histological type, hormonal receptor status, Ki-67 and HER2 expression, tumor cell density and the dynamics of these parameters in response to NST. Therapeutic pathomorphosis was estimated using ypTNM, Miller–Payne and RCB grading systems.

Results. We observed various changes in the immunophenotypic profiles of the tumors in response to NST: luminal B subtype (HER2–) can become luminal A subtype due to decreased Ki-67 level and triple negative due to the loss of hormone receptors expression; triple negative breast cancer can acquire expression of hormone receptors and become luminal B subtype (HER2–).

Conclusion. Integral assessment of therapeutic pathomorphosis using various grading systems (Miller–Payne, ypTNM and RCB) provides objective information on the residual tumor status. Pathomorphological assessment of residual tumor is an important component in the initial evaluation of various NST regimens efficacy.

1. Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V. Breast cancer: biology, local and systemic treatment. Moscow: SIMK, 2014. P. 352. (In Russ.)

2. Semiglazov V.F., Patluev R.M., Manikhas A.G. et al. Gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Moscow: ABVPress, 2016. P. 447. (In Russ.).

3. Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V. Treatment of breast cancer. Clinical and biological rationale. A guidelinе for physicians. Moscow: SIMK, 2017. 277 p. (In Russ.).

4. Lisaeva A.A., Vishnevskaya Ya.V., Roschin E.M. et al. Therapeutic pathomorphism of malignancies: clinical and morphological criteria. Classifications. Prognostic value of therapeutic pathomorphism in breast cancer and other tumors. Opukholi zhenskoy reproduktivnoy systemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System 2011;(4):19–23. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1994-4098-2011-0-4-19-23.

5. Miller I.D., Payne S., Ogston K.N. A new gistological grading system to assess response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 2002;20(4):791–6. PMID: 14659147.

6. Chevallier B., Roche H., Olivier J.P. et al. Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol 1993;16(3):223–8. PMID: 8338056.

7. Sataloff D.M., Mason B.A., Prestipino A.J. et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180(3):297–306. PMID: 7874340.

8. Honkoop A.H., Pinedo H.M., de Jong J.S. et al. Effects of chemotherapy on pathologic and biologic characteristics of locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1997;107(2):211–8. PMID: 9024070.

9. Pathoanatomical diagnosis of human tumors: a guideline. Eds.: N.A. Kraevskiy, A.V. Smol’yannikov. Vol. 1. Moscow: Meditsina, 1993. Pp. 130–158. (In Russ.).

10. Symmans W.F., Peintinger F., Hatzis C. et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(28):4414–22. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6823.

11. Semiglazov V.F., Komyakhov A.V., Semiglazov V.V. еt al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer and assessment of the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy. Effektivnaya farmakoterapiya = Effective Pharmacotherapy 2015;10:54–63. (In Russ.).

12. Bashlyk V.O., Khadzhimatova Sh.M., Krivorot’ko P.V. et al. Cellular density and proliferative activity in intermediate biopsies form patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Zlokachestvennye opukholi = Malignant Tumors 2016;4S-1(20):136. (In Russ.).

13. Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V., Petrenko O.L. et al. Organ preservation treatment after neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer. Voprosy onkologii = Problems in Oncology 2015;61(3):381–6. [Semiglazov V.F., Semiglazov V.V., Petrenko O.L. et al. Organ preservation treatment after neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer. Voprosy onkologii = Problems in Oncology 2015;61(3):381–6. (In Russ.).

14. Semenova T.S., Artem’eva A.S., Kudaybergenova A.G. A method for tissue matrices production using automatic systems and its application. Zlokachestvennye opukholi = Malignant Tumors 2016;4S-1(20):321. (In Russ.).

15. Aurilio G., Disalvatore D., Pruneri G. et al. A meta-analysis of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 discordance between primary breast cancer and metastases. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(2): 277–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.004. DOI: 10.17650/1994‑4098‑2018‑14‑1‑12-19