Эволюция подходов к морфологической оценке регресса рака молочной железы после неоадъювантной химиотерапии

В статье представлен обзор развития подходов к морфологической оценке терапевтического эффекта при раке молочной железы после неоадъювантной терапии. Рассмотрены ранние системы оценки, основанные преимущественно на качественной и полуколичественной характеристиках регрессии опухоли (B. Chevallier и соавт., D. M. Sataloff и соавт., система Miller–Payne). Особое внимание уделено современным методам оценки терапевтического ответа, прежде всего индексу остаточной опухолевой нагрузки. Статья отражает эволюцию подходов от описательных шкал к стандартизированным количественным моделям, позволяющим более объективно оценивать остаточную опухоль и прогноз заболевания. 

1. Лавникова Г.А. Гистологический метод количественной оценки терапевтического повреждения опухоли. М.: Методические рекомендации, 1979. 13 с.

2. Chevallier B., Roche H., Olivier J.P. et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol 1993;3(16):223–8. PMID: 8338056.

3. Sataloff D.M., Mason B.A., Prestipino A.J. et al. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995;3(180):297–306. PMID: 7874340.

4. Ogston K.N., Miller I.D., Payne S. et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast 2003;5(12):320–7. DOI: 10.1016/s0960-9776(03)00106-1

5. Feldman L.D., Hortobagyi G.N., Buzdar A.U. et al. Pathological assessment of response to induction chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res 1986;5(46):2578–81. PMID: 3697997.

6. Penault-Llorca F., Abrial C., Raoelfils I. et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol 2008;8(39):1221–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.11.019

7. Chollet P., Amat S., Cure H. et al. Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2002;86(7):1041–6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600210

8. Lee H.J., Park I.A., Song I.H. et al. Comparison of pathologic response evaluation systems after anthracycline with/without taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy among different subtypes of breast cancers. PLoS One 2015;9(10):e0137885. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137885

9. Sejben A., Kószó R., Kahán Z. et al. Examination of tumor regression grading systems in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy. Pathol Oncol Res 2020;4(26):2747–54. DOI: 10.1007/s12253-020-00867-3

10. Wolmark N., Wang J., Mamounas E. et al. 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. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003469

11. Rastogi P., Anderson S.J., Bear H.D. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(5):778–85. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0235

12. Fisher B., Bryant J., Wolmark N. et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15(8):2483–93. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2672

13. Pinder S.E., Provenzano E., Earl H., Ellis I.O. Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology 2007;4(50):409–17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02419.x

14. Goorts B., Dreuning K.M.A., Houwers J.B. et al. MRI-based response patterns during neoadjuvant chemotherapy can predict pathological (complete) response in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2018;20(1):34. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-018-0950-x

15. Chollet P., Abrial C., Durando X. et al. A new prognostic classification after primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: residual disease in breast and nodes (RDBN). Cancer J 2008;2(14):128–32. DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e31816bdea2

16. Symmans W.F., Peintinger F., Hatzis Ch. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;28(25):4414–22. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6823

17. Peintinger F., Sinn B., Hatzis Ch. et al. Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol 2015;7(28):913–20. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.53

18. Yau C., Osdoit M., van der Noordaa M. et al. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients. Lancet Oncol 2022;1(23):149–60. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1

19. Invasive carcinoma of the breast in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy. ICCR: 2025 Available at: https://www.iccr-cancer.org/datasets/published-datasets/breast/breast-neoadjuvant-therapy

20. Ellis M.J., Tao Y., Luo J. et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(19):1380–8. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn309