What the clinician needs from the pathologist: evidence-based reporting in breast cancer

Histopathology has a vital role in determining breast cancer management and pathologists must be part of the clinical team. Carcinoma size, grade, and especially lymph node status remain the best available prognostic factors. Metastatic carcinoma in axillary nodes is more important than any other prognostic factor presently available. ER status is an important predictor of response to endocrine manipulation, but its independent prognostic significance, and that of micrometastatic disease, circulating carcinoma cells and other molecular factors, even well-studied ones such as HER2 status, are less clear. Pathology is the first clinical speciality to subject its practice to rigorous scientific analysis, and it has stood up well. However, workers without appropriate experience in Pathology or scientific design have created difficulties by undertaking poorly planned studies with ill-defined end-points, lacking appropriate quality control. New analytical techniques and therapeutic targets make it essential that we learn from past mistakes and integrate pathologists into the research teams pursing clinical trials and the assessment of new bio-markers. Without this, input resource will be wasted on false leads that could have been curtailed. Morphology alone will not be enough to select patients likely to benefit in trials of new therapies, but selection 'tests' must be appropriate. The confusion of tests for selection of patients to receive Herceptin shows what happens when this process fails. Much of the microarray data being put into data-bases has no quality control, and meta-analysis of this data will produce even more conflict than the clinical trials. This can be avoided, as the ability to standardise is available.