Advances in the diagnosis of pathological response by a second biopsy in breast cancer neoadjuvant therapy and their clinical significance

doi:10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2022.04.006

Abstract

Abstract:

With the development of neoadjuvant therapy, the pathological complete response rate has significantly increased for breast cancer patients.Theoretically, the use of locoregional radiotherapy instead of surgery is available for patients with pathological complete response, thus it is essential to predict pathological complete response precisely before surgery. Due to its higher accuracy for assessing the pathological complete response, the second biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is believed to have potential for diagnosing pathological complete response instead of surgery. Recently several published prospective trials showed the relatively high false negative rates of the second biopsy and omitting surgery for the exceptional responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy required further investigation. This review elaborated on the clinical utility and significance of the second biopsy firstly and divided these studies into small feasible research and large prospective research in which the results and features were discussed.

Key words: Breast cancer, Neoadjuvant therapy, Pathological complete response, Second biopsy

CLC Number:

R737.9

XU Bingqi, ZHANG Guoqiang. Advances in the diagnosis of pathological response by a second biopsy in breast cancer neoadjuvant therapy and their clinical significance[J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(4): 335-342.

Figures/Tables 3

Tab. 1

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

References 36

[1]	CASTRELLON A B,, PIDHORECKY I,, VALERO V, et al. The role of carboplatin in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment of triple negative breast cancer[J]. Oncol Rev, 2017, 11(1): 324.
[2]	GIANNI L,, PIENKOWSKI T,, IM Y H, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2012, 13(1): 25-32. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9
[3]	GOLSHAN M,, CIRRINCIONE C T,, SIKOV W M, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant therapy on eligibility for and frequency of breast conservation in stage Ⅱ-Ⅲ HER2-positive breast cancer: surgical results of CALGB 40601 (Alliance)[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2016, 160(2): 297-304. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4006-6
[4]	GOLSHAN M,, CIRRINCIONE C T,, SIKOV W M, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage Ⅱ-Ⅲ triple negative breast cancer on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery and breast conservation rates: surgical results from CALGB 40603 (Alliance)[J]. Ann Surg, 2015, 262(3): 434-439; discussion 438-439.
[5]	RING A,, WEBB A,, ASHLEY S, et al. Is surgery necessary after complete clinical remission following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer?[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2003, 21(24): 4540-4545. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.208
[6]	VAN LA PARRA R F D,, KUERER H M. Selective elimination of breast cancer surgery in exceptional responders: historical perspective and current trials[J]. Breast Cancer Res, 2016, 18(1): 28. doi: 10.1186/s13058-016-0684-6
[7]	PEINTINGER F,, KUERER H M,, ANDERSON K, et al. Accuracy of the combination of mammography and sonography in predicting tumor response in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2006, 13(11): 1443-1449. doi: 10.1245/s10434-006-9086-9
[8]	KEUNE J D,, JEFFE D B,, SCHOOTMAN M, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in predicting pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer[J]. Am J Surg, 2010, 199(4): 477-484. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.03.012
[9]	SHAH S K,, SHAH S K,, GREATREX K V. Current role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast imaging: a primer for the primary care physician[J]. J Am Board Fam Pract, 2005, 18(6): 478-490. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.478
[10]	CROSHAW R,, SHAPIRO-WRIGHT H,, SVENSSON E, et al. Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining post neoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2011, 18(11): 3160-3163. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1919-5
[11]	KUERER H M,, VRANCKEN PEETERS M T F D,, REA D W, et al. Nonoperative management for invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic therapy: conceptual basis and fundamental international feasibility clinical trials[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2017, 24(10): 2855-2862. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5926-z
[12]	HEIL J,, KÜMMEL S,, SCHAEFGEN B, et al. Diagnosis of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by minimal invasive biopsy techniques[J]. Br J Cancer, 2015, 113(11): 1565-1570. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.381
[13]	MAURI D,, PAVLIDIS N,, IOANNIDIS J P A. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2005, 97(3): 188-194. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji021
[14]	RASTOGI P,, ANDERSON S J,, BEAR H D, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(5): 778-785. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0235
[15]	CORTAZAR P,, ZHANG L J,, UNTCH M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis[J]. Lancet, 2014, 384(9938): 164-172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
[16]	ZHANG Y,, SHEN J P,, WU S Y, et al. The use of a second core needle biopsy to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients, especially in the HER2-positive population[J]. Surgery, 2020, 168(6): 1115-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.06.045
[17]	MASUDA N,, LEE S J,, OHTANI S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy[J]. N Engl J Med, 2017, 376(22): 2147-2159. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
[18]	VON MINCKWITZ G,, HUANG C S,, MANO M S, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(7): 617-628. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017
[19]	VON MINCKWITZ G,, KÜMMEL S,, VOGEL P, et al. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase Ⅲ randomized GeparTrio trial[J]. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2008, 100(8): 542-551. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn085
[20]	邵志敏,, 江泽飞,, 李俊杰, 等. 中国乳腺癌新辅助治疗专家共识(2019年版)[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2019, 29(5): 390-400.
	SHAO Z M,, JIANG Z F,, LI J J, et al. Expert consensus on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in China (2019 edition)[J]. China Oncol, 2019, 29(5): 390-400.
[21]	中国抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会. 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌诊治指南与规范(2021年版)[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2021, 31(10): 954-1040.
	The Society of Breast Cancer China Anti-Cancer Association. Guidelines for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment by China Anti-Cancer Association (2021 edition)[J]. China Oncol, 2021, 31(10): 954-1040.
[22]	中国临床肿瘤学会指南工作委员会组织. 中国临床肿瘤学会(CSCO)乳腺癌诊疗指南-2021[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2021.
[23]	SPRING L M,, FELL G,, ARFE A, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival: a comprehensive meta-analysis[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2020, 26(12): 2838-2848. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3492
[24]	XIE Y F,, WU S Y,, ZHANG Y, et al. Optimal duration of neoadjuvant taxane and carboplatin combined with anti-HER2 targeted therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer[J]. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 686591. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.686591
[25]	HEIL J,, SCHAEFGEN B,, SINN P, et al. Can a pathological complete response of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy be diagnosed by minimal invasive biopsy?[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2016, 69: 142-150. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.034
[26]	KUERER H M,, RAUCH G M,, KRISHNAMURTHY S, et al. A clinical feasibility trial for identification of exceptional responders in whom breast cancer surgery can be eliminated following neoadjuvant systemic therapy[J]. Ann Surg, 2018, 267(5): 946-951. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002313
[27]	FRANCIS A,, HERRING K,, MOLYNEUX R, et al. Abstract P5-16-14: NOSTRA PRELIM: a non randomised pilot study designed to assess the ability of image guided core biopsies to detect residual disease in patients with early breast cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy to inform the design of a planned trial[C]//. Poster Session Abstracts. American Association for Cancer Research, 2017.
[28]	LEE H B,, HAN W,, KIM S Y, et al. Prediction of pathologic complete response using image-guided biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients selected based on MRI findings: a prospective feasibility trial[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2020, 182(1): 97-105. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05678-3
[29]	LOEVEZIJN A V,, VAN DER NOORDAA M E M,, VAN WERKHOVEN E, et al. Minimally invasive complete response assessment of the breast after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (MICRA trial): interim analysis of a multicenter observational cohort study[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2020, 138: S9-S10.
[30]	HEIL J,, PFOB A,, SINN H P P, et al. Abstract GS5-03: Diagnosing residual disease and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by image-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results of a prospective multicenter trial[C]// . General session abstracts. American Association for Cancer Research, 2020.
[31]	MARK BASIK R S C,, JENNIFER F DE LOS SANTOS H R U,, THOMAS B JULIAN E P M, et al. Abstract GS5-05: primary analysis of NRG-BR005, a phase Ⅱ trial assessing accuracy of tumor bed biopsies in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with clinical/radiological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to explore the feasibility of breast-conserving treatment without surgery[C]. 2020, 80(Suppl 4): 5.
[32]	TASOULIS M K,, LEE H B,, YANG W, et al. Accuracy of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy image-guided breast biopsy to predict residual cancer[J]. JAMA Surg, 2020, 155(12): e204103. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4103
[33]	VAN DER NOORDAA M E M,, VAN DUIJNHOVEN F H,, LOO C E, et al. Identifying pathologic complete response of the breast after neoadjuvant systemic therapy with ultrasound guided biopsy to eventually omit surgery: study design and feasibility of the MICRA trial (minimally invasive complete response assessment)[J]. Breast, 2018, 40: 76-81. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.015
[34]	HEIL J,, SINN P,, RICHTER H, et al. RESPONDER-diagnosis of pathological complete response by vacuum-assisted biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer-a multicenter, confirmative, one-armed, intra-individually-controlled, open, diagnostic trial[J]. BMC Cancer, 2018, 18(1): 851. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4760-4
[35]	LI Y,, ZHOU Y D,, MAO F, et al. The diagnostic performance of minimally invasive biopsy in predicting breast pathological complete response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 933. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00933
[36]	PFOB A,, SIDEY-GIBBONS C,, LEE H B, et al. Identification of breast cancer patients with pathologic complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant systemic treatment by an intelligent vacuum-assisted biopsy[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2021, 143: 134-146. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.11.006

Approach	Clinical examination	Mammography	Ultrasound	MRI	Second biopsy
Advantages	Simple and convenient	High sensitivity	Easy to operate and free of radiation; High accuracy; Assessable for axillary response;	High resolution for soft tissue; Non-invasive and free of radiation; Highest accuracy in traditional radiology	Higher accuracy than MRI; Lower false-negative rate
Disadvantages	Effect by subjective judgement; Lower accuracy than other approaches	Effect by breast density, benign calcification and artifacts etc.; Exposure to radiation; Axillary status cannot be assessed; Difficult to distinguish the residual disease and post-chemotherapy fibrosis	Highly effect by the operator; High false positive rate	Expensive; Risk of contrast agent sensitization	Invasive; Required marker clips; Accuracy depends on the size of needle and number of specimens; Guided by imaging

Study	Eligibility criteria	Number of patients	Type of biopsy	Type of guidance	Results
Heil, et al.^[12]	Early breast cancer; cCR after NACT	164	111 by CC and 46 by VAB	143 by ultrasound; 20 by mammograph; 1 by unknow	NPV=71.3% FNR=49.3%
Heil, et al.^[25]	Operable breast cancer; cCR/cPR after NACT; target lesion visible on ultrasound	50	VAB	Ultrasound	Entire cohort: NPV=76.7%; FNR=49.3%; Pathologic representative specimens: NPV=94.4%; FNR=4.8%
MD Anderson Cancer Center^[26]	TNBC and HER2⁺ breast caner; Lesion size < 5 cm on imaging after NACT	40	VAB and FNA; median sampling number of 12	63% by stereotactic techniques; 37% by ultrasound	Accuracy=98%; FNR=5%; NPV=95%
NOSTRA PRELIM^[27]	Invasive breast cancer regardless of subtypes; Received NACT	20	CNB; median sampling number of 4	Ultrasound	Cases of false negative of 4/18
Lee, et al.^[28]	Near pCR after NACT (Size of lesion≤0.5 cm or L-to-B SER ≤1.6 on MRI)	40	CNB or VAB	MRI assisted ultrasound	NPV=87.1%; FNR=30.8%; Accuracy=90%

Study group	Eligibility criteria	Type of biopsy	Number of patients	Unique features	Results
MICRA^[29]	Invasive breast cancer; No metastasis; rPR/rCR by CE-MRI after NACT	Ultrasound-guided 14G biopsies targeted around pre-NACT-placed marker (4 central and 4 peripheral)	167 (still recruiting)	Included all subtypes; Assessing response by CE-MRI	FNR=37%
RESPONDER^[30]	Invasive breast cancer; cCR/PR; Visible targeted lesion on ultrasound/mammography	Ultrasound/mammography guided VAB	398	pCR identified by VAB	FNR=17.8% (95% CI: 12.8%-23.7%)
NRG-BR005^[31]	Unifocal or multifocal; cCR after NACT; rCR/nearCR by triple- modality radiology; Patients must have a biopsy marker placed within the tumor bed with imaging confirmation of marker placement prior to NST	6, 8, 11G VAB, stereotactic-guided	98 (still recruiting)	Multicenter, triple-modality radiology was required	FNR=50% NPV=77.5% (95% CI: 66.8%-86.1%)
Multicenter pooled analysis^[32]	Invasive breast cancer; Any subtypes; At least achieved rCR; Marker/residual tumor/microcalcification can be clearly identified within the primary lesion location	VAB/CNB; Ultrasound or stereotactic	166	Multicenter pooled data analysis	FNR=18.7% NPV=84.3%