Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and there is a continual drive to identify markers that will aid in predicting prognosis and response to therapy. To date, relatively few markers have established prognostic power. Oestrogen receptor (ER) is probably the most powerful predictive marker in breast cancer management, both in determining prognosis and in predicting response to hormone therapies. Progesterone receptor (PR) is also a widely used marker, although its value is less well established. HER‐2 status has also become a routine prognostic and predictive factor in breast cancer. Given the importance of these biological markers in patient management, it is essential that assays are robust and quality controlled, and that interpretation is standardized. Furthermore, it is important to be aware of the limitations in their predictive power, and how this may be refined through addition of further biological markers. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the established role of ER, PR and HER‐2 in patient management, the current standards for assessing these markers, as well as highlighting the controversies that still surround their use and methods of assessment.

No abstract

Applying minimum requirements and quality indicators is essential to improve organisation, performance and outcome in breast care. Efficacy and compliance have to be constantly monitored to evaluate the quality of patient care and to allow appropriate corrective actions leading to improvements in patient care.

No abstract

Aims: To evaluate aspects of the current practice of sentinel lymph node (SLN) pathology in breast cancer via a questionnaire based survey, to recognise major issues that the European guidelines for mammography screening should address in the next revision. Methods: A questionnaire was circulated by mail or electronically by the authors in their respective countries. Replies from pathology units dealing with SLN specimens were evaluated further. Results: Of the 382 respondents, 240 European pathology units were dealing with SLN specimens. Sixty per cent of these units carried out intraoperative assessment, most commonly consisting of frozen sections. Most units slice larger SLNs into pieces and only 12% assess these slices on a single haematoxylin and eosin (HE) stained slide. Seventy one per cent of the units routinely use immunohistochemistry in all cases negative by HE. The terms micrometastasis, submicrometastasis, and isolated tumour cells (ITCs) are used in 93%, 22%, and 71% of units, respectively, but have a rather heterogeneous interpretation. Molecular SLN staging was reported by only 10 units (4%). Most institutions have their own guidelines for SLN processing, but some countries also have well recognised national guidelines. Conclusions: Pathological examination of SLNs throughout Europe varies considerably and is not standardised. The European guidelines should focus on standardising examination. They should recommend techniques that identify metastases . 2 mm as a minimum standard. Uniform reporting of additional findings may also be important, because micrometastases and ITCs may in the future be shown to have clinical relevance.

To identify markers of non-response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) that could be used in the adjuvant setting. Sixteen pathologists of the European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology reviewed the core biopsies of breast cancers treated with NAC and recorded the clinico-pathological findings (histological type and grade; estrogen, progesterone receptors, and HER2 status; Ki67; mitotic count; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; necrosis) and data regarding the pathological response in corresponding surgical resection specimens. Analyses were carried out in a cohort of 490 cases by comparing the groups of patients showing pathological complete response (pCR) and partial response (pPR) with the group of non-responders (pathological non-response: pNR). Among other parameters, the lobular histotype and the absence of inflammation were significantly more common in pNR (p < 0.001). By ROC curve analyses, cut-off values of 9 mitosis/2 mm2 and 18 % of Ki67-positive cells best discriminated the pNR and pCR + pPR categories (p = 0.018 and < 0.001, respectively). By multivariable analysis, only the cut-off value of 9 mitosis discriminated the different response categories (p = 0.036) in the entire cohort. In the Luminal B/HER2− subgroup, a mitotic count <9, although not statistically significant, showed an OR of 2.7 of pNR. A lobular histotype and the absence of inflammation were independent predictors of pNR (p = 0.024 and <0.001, respectively). Classical morphological parameters, such as lobular histotype and inflammation, confirmed their predictive value in response to NAC, particularly in the Luminal B/HER2− subgroup, which is a challenging breast cancer subtype from a therapeutic point of view. Mitotic count could represent an additional marker but has a poor positive predictive value.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-014-3192-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: This article presents the results and observed effects of the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) external quality assurance scheme in breast histopathology. Aims/Methods: The major objectives were to monitor and improve the consistency of diagnoses made by pathologists and the quality of prognostic information in pathology reports. The scheme is based on a twice yearly circulation of 12 cases to over 600 registered participants. The level of agreement was generally measured using k statistics. Results: Four main situations were encountered with respect to diagnostic consistency, namely: (1) where consistency is naturally very high-this included diagnosing in situ and invasive carcinomas (and certain distinctive subtypes) and uncomplicated benign lesions; (2) where the level of consistency was low but could be improved by making guidelines more detailed and explicit-this included histological grading; (3) where consistency could be improved but only by changing the system of classification-this included classification of ductal carcinoma in situ; and (4) where no improvement in consistency could be achieved-this included diagnosing atypical hyperplasia and reporting vascular invasion. Size measurements were more consistent for invasive than in situ carcinomas. Even in cases where there is a high level of agreement on tumour size, a few widely outlying measurements were encountered, for which no explanation is readily forthcoming. Conclusions: These results broadly confirm the robustness of the systems of breast disease diagnosis and classification adopted by the NHSBSP, and also identify areas where improvement or new approaches are required.

No abstract