The BIG 2.04 MRC/EORTC SUPREMO Trial: pathology quality assurance of a large phase 3 randomised international clinical trial of postmastectomy radiotherapy in intermediate-risk breast cancer
Authors:
- On behalf of the SUPREMO Trial Management GroupOGOn behalf of the SUPREMO Trial Management Group
- J. S. ThomasJTJ. S. Thomas
- A. M. HanbyAHA. M. Hanby
- N. RussellNRN. Russell
- G. van TienhovenGTG. van Tienhoven
- K. RiddleKRK. Riddle
- N. AndersonNAN. Anderson
- D. A. CameronDCD. A. Cameron
- J. M. S. BartlettJBJ. M. S. Bartlett
- T. PiperTPT. Piper
- C. CunninghamCCC. Cunningham
- P. CanneyPCP. Canney
Open Access
- 11 February 2017
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Springer Nature in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
- Vol. 163 (1) , 63-69
Abstract
Introduction SUPREMO is a phase 3 randomised trial evaluating radiotherapy post-mastectomy for intermediate-risk breast cancer. 1688 patients were enrolled from 16 countries between 2006 and 2013. We report the results of central pathology review carried out for quality assurance. Patients and methods A single recut haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) tumour section was assessed by one of two reviewing pathologists, blinded to the originally reported pathology and patient data. Tumour type, grade and lymphovascular invasion were reviewed to assess if they met the inclusion criteria. Slides from potentially ineligible patients on central review were scanned and reviewed online together by the two pathologists and a consensus reached. A subset of 25 of these cases was double-reported independently by the pathologists prior to the online assessment. Results The major contributors to the trial were the UK (75%) and the Netherlands (10%). There is a striking difference in lymphovascular invasion (LVi) rates (41.6 vs. 15.1% (UK); p = p = p = 0.40) but a significant difference in the reviewed frequency (16.9 vs. 9.9%; p = 0.004). Of the N− cases, 104 (25.1%) would have been ineligible by initial central review by virtue of grade and/or lymphovascular invasion status. Following online consensus review, this fell to 70 cases (16.3% of N− cases, 4.1% of all cases). Conclusions These data have important implications for the design, powering and interpretation of outcomes from this and future clinical trials. If critical pathology criteria are determinants for trial entry, serious consideration should be given to up-front central pathology review.Keywords
Funding Information
- Medical Research Council (EME 09/800/31)
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trialEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2015
- Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2015
- Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy SpecimensJAMA, 2015
- Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panelHistopathology, 2014
- Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry studyLaboratory Investigation, 2006
- Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinomaEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2006
- Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breastJournal of Clinical Pathology, 2000
- 10-Year Results After Sector Resection With or Without Postoperative Radiotherapy for Stage I Breast Cancer: A Randomized TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 1999
- Obvious peritumoral emboli: an elusive prognostic factor reappraised. Multivariate analysis of 1320 node-negative breast cancersEuropean Journal of Cancer, 1998
- pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long‐term follow‐upHistopathology, 1991