RE: Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

RE: Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis We read with interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Schrijver et al. on receptor conversion during breast cancer progression to metastatic disease, when compared with the primary tumor (1). While we agree with the conclusions of the study, we would like to express our concerns regarding the chosen methodology, namely the exclusion of studies that relied on cytology for the assessment of receptor changes. While one might claim that issues regarding the availability of tumor material and reproducibility may arise due to the use of cytology specimens, we submit that this is not the case. The authors provide three references that support their reasoning behind the by-default exclusion of all cytology-based trials (references 55, 56, and 57 in the article). However, two of the studies that are cited (Rao et al., Ganott et al.) did not show any statistically significant difference in terms of sensitivity between core and fine needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs). Importantly, the cited publications concern locoregional breast cancer and not metastatic disease. Published data on the advanced disease setting do not support these assumptions. In a population-based study on the biology of breast cancer progression, our group demonstrated that there is high concordance between the detected-via-core biopsy and FNAB changes in the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67 in the relapse site compared with the primary tumor (Figure 1) (2). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Discordance in receptor expression between primary tumor and relapse, as assessed by fine needle aspiration or core/excision biopsy. This was originally published as a supplementary table (2). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. ER = estrogen receptor; FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization; FNA = fine needle aspiration; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ICC = immunocytochemistry; IHC = immunohistochemistry; Ki67 = proliferation; PR = progesterone receptor. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Discordance in receptor expression between primary tumor and relapse, as assessed by fine needle aspiration or core/excision biopsy. This was originally published as a supplementary table (2). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. ER = estrogen receptor; FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization; FNA = fine needle aspiration; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ICC = immunocytochemistry; IHC = immunohistochemistry; Ki67 = proliferation; PR = progesterone receptor. On the other hand, the blanket exclusion of all studies based on the cytological assessment of the receptors and not depending on an individual assessment of the study quality led to uncertainty regarding the heterogeneity of the results obtained by various methods of measurement of ER/PR expression. This issue has been previously examined by our group in one of the largest published studies on receptor changes in breast cancer relapse (3). Specifically, there were no systematic differences when estrogen receptor expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry/immunocytochemistry compared with biochemical assessment. Furthermore, the authors correctly recognize the decalcification of bone biopsies as a source of bias and excluded it from their analysis such studies. However, this may not accurately represent routine clinical practice. In contrast, bone FNAB is a widely used alternative to bone core biopsies, without the disadvantage of decalcification; thus it can properly capture the evolution of disease biology during progression (4). Finally, the authors state that there is a need for prospective trials to assess the clinical implications of receptor conversion. Two such studies, which are cited by the authors, have already been published (references 38 and 51 in the article). Taking into account the available evidence, further prospective studies with random assignment to no biopsy as a control arm could be considered unethical (5,6). In conclusion, while we agree with the results and conclusions of this meta-analysis, we remain concerned regarding the study inclusion criteria and the message conveyed that FNAB of metastatic sites is not an appropriate diagnostic modality and that further investigation is warranted, because it is clear that routine metastatic biopsies should be integrated into clinical practice, as suggested by contemporary guidelines (7). Note Affiliation of authors: Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Breast Cancer Group and Radiumhemmet, Cancer Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. References 1 Schrijver WAME , Suijkerbuijk KPM , van Gils CH et al. , Receptor conversion in distant breast cancer metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis . J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 ; 110 6 :djx273. 2 Karlsson E , Appelgren J , Solterbeck A et al. , Breast cancer during follow-up and progression – a population based cohort on new cancers and changed biology . Eur J Cancer. 2014 ; 50 17 : 2916 – 2924 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3 Lindstrom LS , Karlsson E , Wilking UM et al. , Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression . J Clin Oncol. 2012 ; 30 21 : 2601 – 2608 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 4 Wedin R , Bauer HC , Skoog L et al. , Cytological diagnosis of skeletal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy in 110 tumours . J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 ; 82 5 : 673 – 678 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5 Amir E , Miller N , Geddie W et al. , Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer . J Clin Oncol. 2012 ; 30 6 : 587 – 592 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6 Thompson AM , Jordan LB , Quinlan P et al. , Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: The Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS) . Breast Cancer Res. 2010 ; 12 6 : R92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7 Cardoso F , Costa A , Senkus E et al. , 3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3) . Ann Oncol. 2017 ; 28 1 : 16 – 33 . Google Scholar PubMed © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute Oxford University Press

RE: Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/re-receptor-conversion-in-distant-breast-cancer-metastases-a-drpT0sSMQZ
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0027-8874
eISSN
1460-2105
D.O.I.
10.1093/jnci/djy046
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We read with interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Schrijver et al. on receptor conversion during breast cancer progression to metastatic disease, when compared with the primary tumor (1). While we agree with the conclusions of the study, we would like to express our concerns regarding the chosen methodology, namely the exclusion of studies that relied on cytology for the assessment of receptor changes. While one might claim that issues regarding the availability of tumor material and reproducibility may arise due to the use of cytology specimens, we submit that this is not the case. The authors provide three references that support their reasoning behind the by-default exclusion of all cytology-based trials (references 55, 56, and 57 in the article). However, two of the studies that are cited (Rao et al., Ganott et al.) did not show any statistically significant difference in terms of sensitivity between core and fine needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs). Importantly, the cited publications concern locoregional breast cancer and not metastatic disease. Published data on the advanced disease setting do not support these assumptions. In a population-based study on the biology of breast cancer progression, our group demonstrated that there is high concordance between the detected-via-core biopsy and FNAB changes in the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67 in the relapse site compared with the primary tumor (Figure 1) (2). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Discordance in receptor expression between primary tumor and relapse, as assessed by fine needle aspiration or core/excision biopsy. This was originally published as a supplementary table (2). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. ER = estrogen receptor; FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization; FNA = fine needle aspiration; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ICC = immunocytochemistry; IHC = immunohistochemistry; Ki67 = proliferation; PR = progesterone receptor. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Discordance in receptor expression between primary tumor and relapse, as assessed by fine needle aspiration or core/excision biopsy. This was originally published as a supplementary table (2). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. ER = estrogen receptor; FISH = fluorescence in situ hybridization; FNA = fine needle aspiration; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ICC = immunocytochemistry; IHC = immunohistochemistry; Ki67 = proliferation; PR = progesterone receptor. On the other hand, the blanket exclusion of all studies based on the cytological assessment of the receptors and not depending on an individual assessment of the study quality led to uncertainty regarding the heterogeneity of the results obtained by various methods of measurement of ER/PR expression. This issue has been previously examined by our group in one of the largest published studies on receptor changes in breast cancer relapse (3). Specifically, there were no systematic differences when estrogen receptor expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry/immunocytochemistry compared with biochemical assessment. Furthermore, the authors correctly recognize the decalcification of bone biopsies as a source of bias and excluded it from their analysis such studies. However, this may not accurately represent routine clinical practice. In contrast, bone FNAB is a widely used alternative to bone core biopsies, without the disadvantage of decalcification; thus it can properly capture the evolution of disease biology during progression (4). Finally, the authors state that there is a need for prospective trials to assess the clinical implications of receptor conversion. Two such studies, which are cited by the authors, have already been published (references 38 and 51 in the article). Taking into account the available evidence, further prospective studies with random assignment to no biopsy as a control arm could be considered unethical (5,6). In conclusion, while we agree with the results and conclusions of this meta-analysis, we remain concerned regarding the study inclusion criteria and the message conveyed that FNAB of metastatic sites is not an appropriate diagnostic modality and that further investigation is warranted, because it is clear that routine metastatic biopsies should be integrated into clinical practice, as suggested by contemporary guidelines (7). Note Affiliation of authors: Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Breast Cancer Group and Radiumhemmet, Cancer Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. References 1 Schrijver WAME , Suijkerbuijk KPM , van Gils CH et al. , Receptor conversion in distant breast cancer metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis . J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 ; 110 6 :djx273. 2 Karlsson E , Appelgren J , Solterbeck A et al. , Breast cancer during follow-up and progression – a population based cohort on new cancers and changed biology . Eur J Cancer. 2014 ; 50 17 : 2916 – 2924 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3 Lindstrom LS , Karlsson E , Wilking UM et al. , Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression . J Clin Oncol. 2012 ; 30 21 : 2601 – 2608 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 4 Wedin R , Bauer HC , Skoog L et al. , Cytological diagnosis of skeletal lesions. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy in 110 tumours . J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 ; 82 5 : 673 – 678 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5 Amir E , Miller N , Geddie W et al. , Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer . J Clin Oncol. 2012 ; 30 6 : 587 – 592 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6 Thompson AM , Jordan LB , Quinlan P et al. , Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: The Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS) . Breast Cancer Res. 2010 ; 12 6 : R92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7 Cardoso F , Costa A , Senkus E et al. , 3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3) . Ann Oncol. 2017 ; 28 1 : 16 – 33 . Google Scholar PubMed © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer InstituteOxford University Press

Published: Mar 29, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off