Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for pathological diagnosis of breast cancer

  • Special Feature
  • Japanese Breast Cancer Society Guidelines 2013
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Caudry DJ, Sneige N, Frable WJ, Berf WA, et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic oncology group V. Radiology. 2001;219:785–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giard RW, Hermans J. The value of routine cytologic examination of breast cyst fluids. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:301–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yamaguchi R, Tsuchiya SI, Koshikawa T, Ishikawa A, Nasuda S, Maeda I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast in Japan: report from the Working Group on the accuracy of breast fine-needle aspiration cytology of the Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology. Oncol Rep. 2012;28:1606–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Westenend PJ, Sever AR, Beekman-De Volderr HJ, Liem SJ. A comparison of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions. Cancer. 2001;93:146–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hatada T, Ishii H, Ichii S, Okada K, Fujikawa Y, Yamamura T. Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core-needle biopsy, and evaluation of combined use in the diagnosis of breast lesions. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:299–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ballo MS, Sneige N. Can cone needle biopsy replace fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of palpable breast carcinoma? A comparative study of 124 women. Cancer. 1996;78:773–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pijnappel RM, van den Donk M, Holland R, Mali WP, Peterse JL, Hendrinks JH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy for different strategies of image-guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:595–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Feoli F, Paesmans M, Van Eeckhout P. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: impact of experience on accuracy, using standardized cytologic criteria. Acta Cytol. 2008;52:145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gumus H, Gumus M, Devalia H, Mills P, Fish D, Jones P, et al. Causes of failure in removing calcium in microcalcification-only lesions using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18:354–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Penco S, Rizzo S, Bozzini AC, Latronico A, Menna S, Cassano E, et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcification are removed: analysis of 4,086 procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1255–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11:359–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsuda H, Akiyama F, Kurosumi M, Sakamoto G, Watanabe T. Establishment of histological criteria for high-risk node-negative breast carcinoma for a multi-institutional randomized clinical trial of adjuvant therapy. Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) Pathology Section. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998;28:486–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;30:96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4224–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2019–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sahoo S, Lester SC. Pathology of breast carcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an overview with recommendations on specimen processing and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:633–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), 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 randomized trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:931–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S, Wickerham DL, Nagtegaal ID, Swain SM, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NASBP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Endo Y, Toyama T, Takahashi S, Sugiura H, Yoshimoto N, Iwasa M, et al. High estrogen receptor expression and low Ki67 expression are associated with improved time to progression during first-line endocrine therapy with aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16:512–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yamashita H, Yando Y, Nishio M, Zhang Z, Hamaguchi M, Mita K, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptor status for predicting response to endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:74–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leake R, Barnes D, Pinder S, Ellis I, Anderson L, Anderson T, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of steroid receptors in breast cancer: a working protocol. UK receptor Group, UK NEQAS, The Scottish Breast Cancer Pathology Group, and The Receptor and Biomarker Study Group of the EORTC. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:634–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Umemura S, Kurosumi M, Moriya T, Oyama T, Arihiro K, Yamashita H, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation for hormone receptor in breast cancer: a practically useful evaluation system and handling protocol. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:232–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arteaga CL, Sliwkowski MX, Osborne CK, Perez EA, Puglisi F, Gianni L. Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;9:16–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guarneri V, Barbieri E, Dieci MV, Piacentini F, Conte P. Anti-HER2 neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HER2 positive breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36(Suppl 3):S62–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Niikura N, Liu J, Hayashi N, Mittendorf EA, Gong Y, Palla SL, et al. Loss of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in metastatic site of HER2-overexpressing primary breast tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:593–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fabi A, Di Benedetto A, Metro G, Perracchio L, Nistico C, Di Filippo F, et al. HER2 protein and gene variation between primary and metastatic breast cancer: significance and impact on patient care. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2055–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendation for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Penault-Llorca F, Bilous M, Dowsett M, Hanna W, Osamura RY, Rüschoff J, et al. Emerging technologies for assessing HER2 amplification. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:539–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Horii R, Matsuura M, Iwase T, Ito Y, Akiyama F. Comparison of dual-color in situ hybridization in HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s12282-012-0436-0.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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;28:3264–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, Shen K. Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:957–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li S, Yang X, Zhang Y, Fan L, Zhang F, Chen L, et al. Assessment accuracy of core needle biopsy for hormone receptors in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:325–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van de 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. 2011;37:422–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JP, Lewinsky BS, Colburn WJ, et al. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996;77:2267–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3219–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Singletary SE. Surgical margin in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fukamachi K, Ishida T, Usami S, Takeda M, Watanabe M, Sasano H, et al. Total-circumference intraoperative frozen section analysis reduced margin-positive rate in breast-conservation surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:513–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Esbona K, Li Z, Willke LG. Intraoperative imprint cytology and frozen section pathology for margin assessment in breast conservation surgery: a systemic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3236–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsujimoto M, Nakabayashi K, Yoshidome K, Kaneko T, Iwase T, Akiyama F, et al. One-step nucleic acid amplification for intraoperative detection of lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4807–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, Reintgen DS, et al. Association of occult metastases in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA. 2001;306:385–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

    Rie Horii

  2. Research Team for Geriatric Pathology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan

    Naoko Honma

  3. Breast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan

    Akiko Ogiya

  4. Department of Pathology, Mie University Hospital, Tsu, Mie, Japan

    Yuji Kozuka

  5. Department of Translational Oncology, St. Marianna University Graduate School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan

    Takayo Fukuda

  6. Department of Pathology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Masayuki Yoshida

  7. Department of Breast Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan

    Shozo Ohsumi

  8. Division of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan

    Hirofumi Mukai

Authors
  1. Rie Horii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naoko Honma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Akiko Ogiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuji Kozuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takayo Fukuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masayuki Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shozo Ohsumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hirofumi Mukai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shozo Ohsumi.

Additional information

This article is an English digested edition of the Nyugan Shinryo guideline 2013 nen ban, published by Kanehara & Co., LTD.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horii, R., Honma, N., Ogiya, A. et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for pathological diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer 22, 59–65 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-014-0549-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-014-0549-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation