Breast Neoplasms: Ibarra JA

Shyyan R, Sener SF, Anderson BO, Garrote LM, Hortobágyi GN, Ibarra JA, Ljung BM, Sancho-Garnier H, Stalsberg H, Anonymous00018. · Department of Surgery, Lviv Regional Cancer Center, Lviv, Ukraine. · Cancer. · Pubmed #18837018 No free full text.

Abstract: A key determinant of breast cancer outcome in any population is the degree to which newly detected cancers can be diagnosed correctly so that therapy can be selected properly and provided in a timely fashion. A multidisciplinary panel of experts reviewed diagnosis guideline tables and discussed core implementation issues and process indicators based on the resource stratification guidelines. Issues were then summarized in the context of 1) clinical assessment, 2) diagnostic breast imaging, 3) tissue sampling, 4) surgical pathology, 5) laboratory tests and metastatic imaging, and 6) the healthcare system. Patient history provides important information for the clinical assessment of breast and comorbid disease that may influence therapy choices. Focused clinical breast examination and complete physical examination provide guidance on the extent of disease, the presence of metastatic disease, and the ability to tolerate aggressive therapeutic regimens. Breast imaging improves preoperative diagnostic assessment and also permits image-guided needle sampling. Diagnostic mammography was not considered mandatory in low- and middle-income countries when resources are lacking. Needle biopsy is preferred to surgical excision for the initial diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions, unless resources are unavailable. Mastectomy should never be used as a method of tissue diagnosis. The availability of predictive tumor markers, especially estrogen receptor testing, is critical when endocrine therapies are available; quality assessment of immunohistochemistry testing is important to avoid false-negative results. Incremental allocation of resources can help address economic disparities and help ensure equity in access to timely diagnosis.

Ibarra JA. · Department of Pathology, Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, USA. · Breast J. · Pubmed #16684322 No free full text.

Abstract: Papillary lesions of the breast include a variety of benign, atypical, and malignant lesions whose hallmark is the formation of either papillary tufts composed only of epithelium, or true papillary structures with fibrovascular support and epithelium. The precise diagnosis has significance because of the variability in treatment modalities. This article attempts to describe the basic features seen in papillary-type lesions and their correlation with imaging studies.

Ibarra JA. · Department of Breast Pathology and Cytopathology, MemorialCare Breast Center, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Long Beach, California, USA. · Surg Oncol Clin N Am. · Pubmed #10757846 No free full text.

Abstract: The pathologist's contribution to the interdisciplinary team approach in breast cancer management is a cornerstone for decision-making. Continuous communication with the radiologist, surgeon, oncologist, and radiation oncologist is essential. Preoperative diagnosis, surgical specimen work-up with size determination, sentinel lymph node examination, processing forms to facilitate the work-up, and diagnostic templates are some of the items covered in this review of the pathologist's contribution to the interdisciplinary team in breast cancer. Use of diagnostic templates or synoptic reports routinely provide the complete diagnostic information required for treatment decisions.

Harman SM, Gucciardo F, Heward CB, Granstrom P, Barclay-White B, Rogers LW, Ibarra JA. · Kronos Longevity Research Institute, 2222 North Highland, Suite 220, Phoenix, AZ 85016, USA. · Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. · Pubmed #16214910 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: The anti-malignin antibody serum (AMAS) test (Oncolab, Boston, MA) has been reported as 97% sensitive and 95% specific for malignancies. To objectively assess accuracy of this test for discrimination of breast cancer, we studied a series of women undergoing core breast biopsy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-one core-needle breast biopsies were classified as malignant, suspicious, or benign by two independent pathologists blinded to AMAS results. Corresponding sera were read as AMAS positive, negative, or borderline by criteria used by Oncolab and also using criteria derived from receiver-operator curves based on values for slow (S-tag), fast (F-tag), and their difference (Net-tag) antibody reported by Oncolab. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and analyzed distributions by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Biopsies were read as 42 (59%) benign, 12 (17%) suspicious, and 17 (24%) malignant. By Oncolab criteria, sensitivity (59%) and specificity (62%) were maximized by pooling suspicious with malignant and AMAS borderline with positive (P = 0.098). Receiver-operator curves showed best sensitivity (62%) and specificity (69%) for the criterion AMAS positive if Net-Tag > 135 microg/mL or S-Tag > 220 microg/mL (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The AMAS test discriminates suspicious and malignant from benign lesions, but sensitivity is insufficient to identify patients to be spared biopsy and false-positive rates are too high for population screening.

Masood S, Vass L, Ibarra JA, Ljung BM, Stalsberg H, Eniu A, Carlson RW, Anderson BO, Anonymous00021. · Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida 32209, USA. · Cancer. · Pubmed #18837021 No free full text.

Abstract: The quality of breast healthcare delivery and the ultimate clinical outcome for patients with breast cancer are directly related to the quality of breast pathology practices within the healthcare system. The Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) held its third Global Summit in Budapest, Hungary from October 1 to 4, 2007, bringing together internationally recognized experts to address the implementation of breast healthcare guidelines for the early detection, diagnosis, and treatment in low-income and middle-income countries (LMCs). From this group, a subgroup of experts met to address the specific needs and concerns related to breast pathology program implementation in LMCs. Specific recommendations were made by the group and process indicators identified in the areas of personnel and training, cytology and histopathology interpretation, accuracy of pathology interpretation, pathology reporting, tumor staging, causes of diagnostic errors, use of immunohistochemical markers, and special requirements to facilitate breast conservation therapy. The group agreed that the financial burden of establishing and maintaining breast pathology services is counterbalanced by the cost savings from decreased adverse effects and excessive use of treatment resources that result from incorrect or incomplete pathologic diagnosis. Proper training in breast pathology for pathologists and laboratory technicians is critical and provides the underpinnings of programmatic success for any country at any level of economic wealth.

Turner RR, Weaver DL, Cserni G, Lester SC, Hirsch K, Elashoff DA, Fitzgibbons PL, Viale G, Mazzarol G, Ibarra JA, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE. · Department of Pathology, Saint John's Health Center, 1328 Twenty-Second St, Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #18182666 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Reliable pathologic stage classification of axillary lymph nodes is an important determinant of prognosis and therapeutic decision making for patients with invasive breast cancer. Pathologists' distinction between micrometastasis (pN1mi) and isolated tumor cells [ITC; pN0(i+)] is variable using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual (Sixth Edition). We sought to determine whether a set of clearly defined histologic criteria could lead to reproducible nodal classification by pathologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Digital images of sentinel lymph node biopsies from 56 patients with small-volume nodal metastases were examined by six experienced breast pathologists (MDs), first as a pre-test, and again as a post-test after studying a training program that outlined and illustrated the classification criteria. RESULTS: Post-test results, after study of the training program, were significantly improved. Compared with the reference MD, agreement improved from 76.2% (pre-test kappa = 0.575; standard deviation [SD], 0.25) to 97.3% (post-test kappa = 0.947; SD, 0.049). Multirater analysis of agreement among the six MDs improved from 71.5% (pre-test kappa = 0.487; ASE, 0.039) to 95.7% (post-test kappa = 0.915; ASE, 0.037). Agreement on lobular carcinoma metastasis classification improved from 55% (23 of 42; pre-test) to 100% (42 of 42; post-test) (P < .001), and agreement on ITC classification in nodal parenchyma improved from 67.6% (69 of 102; pre-test) to 98.0% (100 of 102; post-test; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Application of current definitions for classification of small-volume nodal metastases are inconsistent, leading to variable classification of ITC and micrometastases. Reproducibility of pathologic nodal stage classification is achievable through study of a training set to clarify the AJCC criteria.

Vargas HI, Anderson BO, Chopra R, Lehman CD, Ibarra JA, Masood S, Vass L, Anonymous00174. · Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California 90509, USA. · Breast J. · Pubmed #12713498 No free full text.

Abstract: Accurate diagnosis is a necessary step in the management of breast cancer. In women with breast cancer, diagnosis can confirm the presence of the disease, reduce treatment delays, and clarify the predictive and prognostic features of the cancer, which help in planning treatment and counseling women. In women with benign breast conditions, accurate diagnosis avoids erroneous treatment for breast cancer, which can have devastating consequences for the woman and unnecessarily consumes resources. The panel distinguishes between a "clinical diagnosis" of breast cancer (one based on signs and symptoms and imaging findings) and a "pathologic diagnosis" of breast cancer (one based on microscopic examination of cellular or tissue samples). The panel agrees that all women should have a pathologic diagnosis of breast cancer before they are given definitive treatment for the disease, no matter how strongly their clinical findings suggest cancer. The tools for clinical diagnosis include history, clinical breast examination, ultrasound, and diagnostic mammography; these tools provide valuable information and play important supplemental roles in ascertaining the presence of breast cancer. Mammography and ultrasound also help determine the extent of disease within the breast, which is essential when breast-conserving therapy can be offered to women. The tools for pathologic diagnosis include fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core needle biopsy, and standard surgical biopsy. The panel noted that each of these tools has potential benefits and limitations in the limited-resource setting, and concluded that the choice among them must be based on the available tools and expertise. The triple test-checking for correlation of pathology findings, imaging findings, and clinical findings-was identified as a critical practice in diagnosing breast cancer. Panelists uniformly agreed that mastectomy should not be used to diagnose breast cancer, noting that accurate diagnosis can be made by less invasive means. Expertise in pathology was identified as a key requirement for ensuring reliable diagnostic findings. Several approaches were proposed for improving breast pathology, including training pathologists, establishing pathology services in centralized facilities, and organizing international pathology services.