Amaç: Meme kanserinde, trucut iğne biyopsi (TİB) ve rezeksiyon materyalleri arasında, tanısal uyum, histolojik derece, moleküler alt tipleri, östrojen reseptörü (ER), progesteron reseptörü (PgR) ve insan epidermal büyüme faktörü reseptörü 2 (HER2) düzeylerinin karşılaştırılarak sonuçların literatür eşliğinde değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve yöntem: 2018 Mayıs-2020 Kasım tarihleri arasında, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Patoloji Anabilim Dalı’nda tanı almış 64 olguya ait TİB ve aynı hastaların rezeksiyon materyalleri çalışmaya alınmıştır. Tümör tipi, derecesi, moleküler alt tipleri ve immunohistokimyasal olarak ER, PgR, HER2, Ki-67 ve moleküler FISH yöntemi ile HER2 durumuna ait patolojik bilgiler retrospektif olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: TİB ile rezeksiyon materyallerinin histolojik tipi arasındaki uyum oranı %93,75’tir. ER, PgR, HER2 uyum oranları sırasıyla, %89 (kappa, 0,685, p
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the the concordance rate of molecular subtypes histological grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) levels between the diagnostic biopsy and resection materials in breast cancer, in the light of the literature. Materials and methods: Trucut needle biopsy (TNB) and resection materials of 64 cases, diagnosed at Department of Pamukkale University Medical Faculty Pathology, between 2018 May and 2020 November were included in this study. Tumor type, degree and pathological information on ER, PgR, HER2, Ki-67, immunohistochemically and HER2 status by molecular FISH method were analyzed retrospectively. Results: : Concordance rate between resection specimens and trucut needle biopsy is 93.75%. The concordance rates for ER, PgR, HER are 89% (kappa, 0.685, p
1. Al Thoubaity FK. Molecular classification of breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2019;49:44-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amsu.2019.11.021
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
3. Devrim T, Aydemir M. Comparison of hormone receptors (Er/Pgr) and Her2 values in breast cancer biopsy and resection materials. Med J SDU 2020;27:154-159. https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.598845
4. Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P, A'Hern R, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol 2009;20:1948- 1952. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp234
5. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2015;26:8-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv298
6. Pettine S, Place R, Babu S, Williard W, Kim D, Carter P. Stereotactic breast biopsy is accurate, minimally, invasive, and cost effective. Am J Surg 1996;171:474- 476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00007-4
7. Pijnappel RM, van Dalen A, Borel Rinkes IH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in palpable and non-palpable breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:120- 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0720-048x(96)01140-0
8. Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T, et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci 2010;101:2074-2079. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349- 7006.2010.01630.x
9. Jeong YS, Kang J, Lee J, Yoo TK, Kim SH, Lee A. Analysis of the molecular subtypes of preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimens in invasive breast cancer. J Pathol Transl Med 2020;54:87-94. https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2019.10.14
10. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kühn T, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med 2002;29:1317- 1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-0880-8
11. Zhang J, Jia Z, Zhou M, et al. The SUVmax for 18F-FDG correlates with molecular subtype and survival of previously untreated metastatic breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2013;38:256-262.
12. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, et al. eds. World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC Press, 2019;19-20.
13. Hoda SA, Brogi E, Koerner FC, Rosen PP. Rosen’s breast pathology, 4rd ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2014:429-430.
14. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Allison KH, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:2105-2122. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.77.8738
15. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Panel members. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013;24:2206- 2223. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt303
16. Shannon J, Douglas Jones AG, Dallimore NS. Conversion to core biopsy in preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions. Is it justified by the results? J Clin Pathol 2001;54:762-765. https://doi.org/10.1136/ jcp.54.10.762
17. Pettine S, Place R, Babu S, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy is accurate, minimally invasive, and cost effective. Am J Surg 1996;171:474-476.
18. Pijnappel RM, van Dalen A, Borel Rinkes IH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in palpable and non-palpable breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:120- 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0720-048x(96)01140-0
19. Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1017-1021. https://doi.org/10.1054/ bjoc.1999.1036
20. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, O'Doherty A, McDermott EW, O'Higgins N. The accuracy of ultrasound, stereotactic, and clinical core biopsies in the diagnosis of breast cancer, with an analysis of false negative cases. Ann Surg 2005;242:701-707. https://doi. org/10.1097/01.sla.0000186186.05971.e0
21. Usami S, Moriya T, Amari M, et al. Reliability of prognostic factors in breast carcinoma determined by core needle biopsy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007;37:250-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hym021
22. Alkabban FM, Ferguson T. Cancer, Breast. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL). Available from: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482286/. Accessed Jun 4, 2019
23. Yersal O, Barutca S. Biological subtypes of breast cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications. World J Clin Oncol 2014;5:412-424. https://doi.org/10.5306/ wjco.v5.i3.412
24. Kunc M, Biernat W, Senkus Konefka E. Estrogen receptor-negative progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer- "Nobody's land" or just an artifact? Cancer Treat Rev 2018;67:78-87. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.05.005
25. Damodaran D, Naidu BK, Varghese JC, et al. A prospective study on level of concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for assessing oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Her2/neu receptor status in carcinoma breast and Iits Iimplications on Ttreatment Ddecisions. Indian J Surg Oncol 2020;11:446-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13193-020-01146-y2020
26. Asogan AB, Hong GS, Arni Prabhakaran SK. Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer. Singapore Med J 2017;58:145- 149. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016062
27. Walter V, Fischer C, Deutsch TM, et al. Estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 discordance between primary and metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020;183:137- 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05746-8
28. Greer LT, Rosman M, Mylander WC, et al. Does breast tumor heterogeneity necessitate further immunohistochemical staining on surgical specimens? J Am Coll Surg 2013;216:239-251. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.007
29. Meattini I, Bicchierai G, Saieva C, et al. Impact of molecular subtypes classification concordance between preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimen on early breast cancer management: single-institution experience and review of published literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43:642-648. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.025
30. Kondov B, Milenkovikj Z, Kondov G, et al. Presentation of the molecular subtypes of breast cancer detected by ımmunohistochemistry in surgically treated patients. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6:961-967. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.231
31. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT, Mukesh BN. Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res 2009;7:4-13. https://doi. org/10.3121/cmr.2009.825