Advertisement

Tumor Biology

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 987–994 | Cite as

Reliability of receptor assessment on core needle biopsy in breast cancer patients

  • S. C. Seferina
  • M. Nap
  • F. van den Berkmortel
  • J. Wals
  • A. C. Voogd
  • V. C. G. Tjan-Heijnen
Research Article

Abstract

We compared the breast core needle biopsy and the resection specimen with respect to estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status to identify predictors for discordant findings. We retrospectively collected data from 526 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. ER, PR and HER2 status had been assessed in both the core needle biopsy and resection specimen. The assessment of ER by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in core needle biopsy was false negative in 26.5% and false positive in 6.8% of patients. For the PR status the false negative and false positive results of core needle biopsy were 29.6% and 10.3%, respectively. The results of the HER2 status, as determined by IHC and silver in situ hybridization (SISH), were false negative in 5.4% and false positive in 50.0%. We need to be aware of the problem of false negative and false positive test results in ER, PR and HER2 assessment in core needle biopsy and the potential impact on adjuvant systemic treatment. With current techniques, we recommend using the resection specimen to measure these receptors in patients without neoadjuvant treatment. A better alternative might be the use of tissue microarray, combining both core needle biopsy and resection specimen.

Keywords

Core needle biopsy Resection specimen Breast cancer Estrogen receptor Progesterone receptor HER2 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Mann GB, Fahey VD, Feleppa F, Buchanan MR. Reliance on hormone receptor assays of surgical specimens may compromise outcome in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):5148–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richter-Ehrenstein C, Muller S, Noske A, Schneider A. Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of core biopsy in the management of breast cancer: a series of 542 patients. Int J Surg Pathol. 2009;17(4):323–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):883–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leers MP, Hoop JG, van Beers M, van Rodijnen N, Pannebakker M, Nap M. Determination of threshold values for determining the size of the fraction of steroid hormone receptor-positive tumor cells in paraffin-embedded breast carcinomas. Cytometry. 2005;64(1):43–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leers MP, Schoffelen RH, Hoop JG, Theunissen PH, Oosterhuis JW, vd Bijl H, et al. Multiparameter flow cytometry as a tool for the detection of micrometastatic tumour cells in the sentinel lymph node procedure of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(5):359–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnes DM, Harris WH, Smith P, Millis RR, Rubens RD. Immunohistochemical determination of oestrogen receptor: comparison of different methods of assessment of staining and correlation with clinical outcome of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1996;74(9):1445–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(1):118–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burge CN, Chang HR, Apple SK. Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens? Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2006;15(2):167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Usami S, Moriya T, Amari M, Suzuki A, Ishida T, Sasano H, et al. Reliability of prognostic factors in breast carcinoma determined by core needle biopsy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37(4):250–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cahill RA, Walsh D, Landers RJ, Watson RG. Preoperative profiling of symptomatic breast cancer by diagnostic core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(1):45–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Badoual C, Maruani A, Ghorra C, Lebas P, Avigdor S, Michenet P. Pathological prognostic factors of invasive breast carcinoma in ultrasound-guided large core biopsies—correlation with subsequent surgical excisions. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2005;14(1):22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al Sarakbi W, Salhab M, Thomas V, Mokbel K. Is preoperative core biopsy accurate in determining the hormone receptor status in women with invasive breast cancer? Int Semin Surg Oncol. 2005 Aug 22;2:15.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P, A'Hern R, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol. 2009;20(12):1948–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taucher S, Rudas M, Mader RM, Gnant M, Dubsky P, Roka S, et al. Prognostic markers in breast cancer: the reliability of HER2/neu status in core needle biopsy of 325 patients with primary breast cancer. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004;116(1–2):26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavaliere A, Sidoni A, Scheibel M, Bellezza G, Brachelente G, Vitali R, et al. Biopathologic profile of breast cancer core biopsy: is it always a valid method? Cancer Lett. 2005;218(1):117–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mueller-Holzner E, Fink V, Frede T, Marth C. Immunohistochemical determination of HER2 expression in breast cancer from core biopsy specimens: a reliable predictor of HER2 status of the whole tumor. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2001;69(1):13–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutela A, Vanninen R, Sudah M, Berg M, Kiviniemi V, Rummukainen J, et al. Surgical specimen can be replaced by core samples in assessment of ER, PR and HER-2 for invasive breast cancer. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden). 2008;47(1):38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Apple SK, Lowe AC, Rao PN, Shintaku IP, Moatamed NA. Comparison of fluorescent in situ hybridization HER-2/neu results on core needle biopsy and excisional biopsy in primary breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(9):1151–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ough M, Velasco J, Hieken TJ. A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and final excision for breast cancer: histology and marker expression. Am J Surg. 2010;201(5):692–4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park SY, Kim KS, Lee TG, Park SS, Kim SM, Han W, et al. The accuracy of preoperative core biopsy in determining histologic grade, hormone receptors, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197(2):266–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lebeau A, Turzynski A, Braun S, Behrhof W, Fleige B, Schmitt WD, et al. Reliability of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry in breast core needle biopsies. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):3264–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Ven S, Smit VT, Dekker TJ, Nortier JW, Kroep JR. Discordances in ER, PR and HER2 receptors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;37(6):422–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zidan A, Christie Brown JS, Peston D, Shousha S. Oestrogen and progesterone receptor assessment in core biopsy specimens of breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50(1):27–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chivukula M, Bhargava R, Brufsky A, Surti U, Dabbs DJ. Clinical importance of HER2 immunohistologic heterogeneous expression in core-needle biopsies vs resection specimens for equivocal (immunohistochemical score 2+) cases. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(4):363–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Werner M, Chott A, Fabiano A, Battifora H. Effect of formalin tissue fixation and processing on immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(7):1016–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, Bobrow LG, Miller KD. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53(2):125–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cyr A, Gillanders WE, Aft RL, Eberlein TJ, Margenthaler JA. Breast cancer in elderly women (>/= 80 years): variation in standard of care? J Surg Oncol. 2011;103(3):201–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thakkar JP, Mehta DG. A review of an unfavorable subset of breast cancer: estrogen receptor positive progesterone receptor negative. Oncologist. 2011;16(3):276–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lacroix M, Toillon RA, Leclercq G. Stable 'portrait' of breast tumors during progression: data from biology, pathology and genetics. Endocrine-related cancer. 2004;11(3):497–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bartlett JM, Ellis IO, Dowsett M, Mallon EA, Cameron DA, Johnston S, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status correlates with lymph node involvement in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) negative, but with grade in those with ER-positive early-stage breast cancer suitable for cytotoxic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4423–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pathmanathan N, Provan PJ, Mahajan H, Hall G, Byth K, Bilous AM, et al. Characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer diagnosed following the introduction of universal HER2 testing. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2012;21(6):724–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ozdemir A, Voyvoda NK, Gultekin S, Tuncbilek I, Dursun A, Yamac D. Can core biopsy be used instead of surgical biopsy in the diagnosis and prognostic factor analysis of breast carcinoma? Clinical breast cancer. 2007;7(10):791–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, Darby S, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. Aug 27;378(9793):771–84.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, Hanusch C, Eidtmann H, Hilfrich J, et al. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine–capecitabine versus docetaxel–doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008;100(8):542–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Abramson AF, Deutch BM, Hann LE. Stereotaxic 14-gauge breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed? Radiology. 1994;192(3):793–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE, Hasmuller S, Lebeau A, Kreienberg R, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lidgren M, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C, Willking N, Bergh J. Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and 1-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):487–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Allred DC. Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist. 2008;13(11):1134–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rossing HH, Talman ML, Laenkholm AV, Wielenga VT. Implementation of TMA and digitalization in routine diagnostics of breast pathology. APMIS. 2012;120(4):341–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. C. Seferina
    • 1
  • M. Nap
    • 2
  • F. van den Berkmortel
    • 3
  • J. Wals
    • 3
  • A. C. Voogd
    • 4
  • V. C. G. Tjan-Heijnen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental BiologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PathologyAtrium Medical Centre ParkstadHeerlenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Internal MedicineAtrium Medical Centre ParkstadHeerlenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental BiologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations