Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden—A single institution study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden—A single institution study
Do you wish to request the book?
Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden—A single institution study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Good practice: The experiences with the utilization of residual cancer burden—A single institution study
2023
Overview
Introduction The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been showing an incraesing tendency in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. The evaluation of residual cancer could be performed by Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) calculator. The prognostic system takes the two largest diameters of the tumor, the cellularity, the amount of in situ carcinoma, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, and the size of the largest metastatic deposit into account. The aim of our study was to examine the reproducibility of RCB in NAT treated patients. Methods Patients who were treated with NAT and had resection specimens between 2018 and 2021 were selected. Histological examination was performed by five pathologists. After assessment of the examined variables, RCB points and RCB classes were defined. For statistical analysis, interclass correlation was used (SPSS Statistics V.22.0 software). Results Altogether 100 patients were included in our retrospective, cohort study (average age: 57 years). In two‐thirds of the cases, third generation chemotherapy was used, and mastectomy was performed. Significant concordance was found in the two largest diameters of the tumor (coefficients, 0.984 and 0.973), the cellularity (coefficient, 0.970), and the largest metastatic deposit (coefficient, 0.998). Although the amount of in situ carcinoma proved to be the least reproducible factor, it resulted in almost 90% of agreement (coefficient, 0.873). Regarding RCB points and classes, similar results were observed (coefficients, 0.989 and 0.960). Conclusions Significant agreement was observed between examiners based on almost all RCB parameters, points, and classes, reflecting the optimal reproducibility of RCB. Therefore, we recommend the use of the calculator in routine histopathological reports in NAT cases. The evaluation of residual cancer in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy could be performed by Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) calculator. The prognostic system takes two largest diameters of the tumour, cellularity, amount of in situ carcinoma, number of metastatic lymph nodes, and size of the largest metastatic deposit into account. The aim of our study was to examine the reproducibility of RCB in NAT treated patients. Significant agreement was observed between examiners based on almost all RCB parameters, points and classes, reflecting the optimal reproducibility of RCB. Therefore, we recommend the use of the calculator in routine histopathological reports in NAT cases.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd,John Wiley & Sons, Inc,Wiley
