Guidelines for HER2 testing in breast cancer: a national consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

Identifying breast cancers with HER2 overexpression or amplification is critical as these usually imply the use of HER2-targeted therapies. DNA (amplification) and protein (overexpression) HER2 abnormalities usually occur simultaneously and both in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry may be accurate methods for the evaluation of these abnormalities. However, recent studies, including those conducted by the Association for Quality Assurance of the Spanish Society of Pathology, as well as the experience of a number of HER2 testing National Reference Centres have suggested the existence of serious reproducibility issues with both techniques. To address this issue, a joint committee from the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) was established to review the HER2 testing guidelines. Consensus recommendations are based not only on the panellists’ experience, but also on previous consensus guidelines from several countries, including the USA, the UK and Canada. These guidelines include the minimal requirements that pathology departments should fulfil in order to guarantee proper HER2 testing in breast cancer. Pathology laboratories not fulfilling these standards should make an effort to meet them and, until then, are highly encouraged to submit to reference laboratories breast cancer samples for which HER2 determination has clinical implications for the patients.     

Guidelines for biomarker testing in colorectal carcinoma (CRC): a national consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

This consensus statement, conceived as a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, makes diagnostic and treatment recommendations for the management of patients with hereditary, localised and advanced CRC based on the current scientific evidence on biomarker use. This consensus statement thus provides an opportunity to improve healthcare efficiency and resource use, which will benefit these patients. Based on the currently available data on this subject, this expert group recommends testing for microsatellite instability (MSI) in patients with localised CRC, as this is a strong predictive factor for deciding on adjuvant treatment. However, although the ColoPrint^? and Oncotype Dx^? gene expression signatures have been shown to have prognostic value, no consensus yet exists concerning their use in clinical practice. For advanced CRC, it is essential to test for KRAS mutation status before administering an anti-EGFR treatment, such as cetuximab or panitumumab. However, testing for other biomarkers, such as BRAF, EGFR, PI3K and PTEN mutations, should not be done routinely, because this does not influence treatment planning at the present time. Other important issues addressed include organisational requirements and the quality controls needed for proper testing of these biomarkers as well as the legal implications to be borne in mind when testing some biomarkers.     

Guidelines for biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A national consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP)

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations can now have specific treatment based on the result of biomarker analysis and patients with rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene will probably soon be able to. This will give them better quality of life and progression-free survival than conventional chemotherapy. This consensus statement was conceived as a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP), and makes diagnostic and treatment recommendations for advanced NSCLC patients based on the scientific evidence on biomarker use. It therefore provides an opportunity to improve healthcare efficiency and resource use, which will undoubtedly benefit these patients. Although this field is in continuous evolution, at present, with the available data, this panel of experts recommends that all patients with advanced NSCLC of non-squamous cell subtype, or non-smokers regardless of the histological subtype, should be tested for EGFR gene mutations within a maximum of 7 days from the pathological diagnosis. Involved laboratories must participate in external quality control programmes. In contrast, ALK gene rearrangements should only be tested in the context of a clinical trial, although the promising data obtained will certainly justify in the near future its routine testing in patients with no EGFR mutations. Lastly, routine testing for other molecular abnormalities is not considered necessary in the current clinical practice.     

Guidelines for biomarker testing in metastatic melanoma: a National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

This consensus statement, conceived as a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), makes diagnostic and treatment recommendations for the management of patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma based on the current scientific evidence on biomarker use. This document thus provides an opportunity to improve healthcare efficiency and resource use, which will benefit these patients. Based on the data available so far, this expert group recommends routinely testing patients with metastatic melanoma for BRAF mutation status, as the result affects the subsequent therapeutic management of these patients. The analysis of genetic alterations in KIT may be reasonable in patients with primary tumours in acral or mucosal sites or on chronically sun-exposed skin, in an advanced condition, but not in patients with other types of melanomas. This panel believes that testing for other genetic alterations, such as NRAS mutation status in patients not carrying BRAF mutations, GNAQ/GNA11 mutational analysis or genetic alterations in PTEN, is not currently indicated as routine clinical practice, because the results do not influence treatment planning in these patients at the present time. Other important issues addressed in this document are the organisational requirements and quality controls needed for proper testing of these biomarkers, and the legal implications to be borne in mind.     

Recommendations for biomarker testing in epithelial ovarian cancer: a National Consensus Statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

Because of advances in the understanding of histological and molecular characteristics in ovarian cancer, it is now possible to recognize the existence of five subtypes, which in turn has allowed a more refined therapeutic approach and better design of clinical trials. Each of these five subtypes has specific histological features and a particular biomarker expression, as well as mutations in different genes, some of which have prognostic and predictive value. CA125 and HE4 are examples of ovarian cancer biomarkers used in the diagnosis and follow-up of these malignancies. Currently, somatic or germinal mutations on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the most important biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer having prognostic and predictive value. This article will review the histological and molecular characteristics of the five subtypes of ovarian cancer, describing the most important biomarkers and mutations that can guide in diagnosis, screening and tailored treatment strategy.     

Updated guidelines for predictive biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

Clinical and Translational Oncology - In 2011 the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) started a joint project to establish guidelines on biomarker...     

Treatment of cancer pain: Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) recommendations for clinical practice

Cancer pain should be controlled in most patients, however this is not always achieved. These guidelines describe the classification, evaluation and treatment of chronic cancer pain in accordance with the WHO treatment strategy of pain stages: mild, moderate and severe. For treatment during the third stage, we cover titration and rotation of opioids, as well as their side effects and prevention. Also described is neuropathic pain and refractory pain, coadjuvant treatments and non pharmacological analgesic treatments. Finally, treatment of breakthrough pain is defined.     

Guidelines for biomarker testing in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a national consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

The annual incidence of neuroendocrine tumours in the Caucasian population ranges from 2.5 to 5 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours is a family of neoplasms widely variable in terms of anatomical location, hormone composition, clinical syndromes they cause and in their biological behaviour. This high complexity and clinical heterogeneity, together with the known difficulty of predicting their behaviour from their pathological features, are reflected in the many classifications that have been developed over the years in this field. This article reviews the main tissue and clinical biomarkers and makes recommendations for their use in medical practice. This document represents a consensus reached jointly by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP).     

Liquid biopsy in oncology: a consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

The proportion of cancer patients with tumours that harbour a potentially targetable genomic alteration is growing considerably. The diagnosis of these genomic alterations can lead to tailored treatment at the onset of disease or on progression and to obtaining additional predictive information on immunotherapy efficacy. However, in up to 25% of cases, the initial tissue biopsy is inadequate for precision oncology and, in many cases, tumour genomic profiling at progression is not possible due to technical limitations of obtaining new tumour tissue specimens. Efficient diagnostic alternatives are therefore required for molecular stratification, which includes liquid biopsy. This technique enables the evaluation of the tumour genomic profile dynamically and captures intra-patient genomic heterogeneity as well. To date, there are several diagnostic techniques available for use in liquid biopsy, each one of them with different precision and performance levels. The objective of this consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology is to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the different methodological approaches in liquid biopsy in cancer patients and the potential application of this method to current clinical practice. The experts contributing to this consensus statement agree that, according to current evidence, liquid biopsy is an acceptable alternative to tumour tissue biopsy for the study of biomarkers in various clinical settings. It is therefore important to standardise pre-analytical and analytical procedures, to ensure reproducibility and generate structured and accessible clinical reports. It is essential to appoint multidisciplinary tumour molecular boards to oversee these processes and to enable the most suitable therapeutic decisions for each patient according to the genomic profile.

     

Biomarkers in breast cancer: A consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology

This consensus statement revises and updates the recommendations for biomarkers use in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, and is a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology. This expert group recommends determining in all cases of breast cancer the histologic grade and the alpha-estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, Ki-67 and HER2 status, in order to assist prognosis and establish therapeutic options, including hormone therapy, chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy. One of the four available genetic prognostic platforms (MammaPrint^®, Oncotype DX^®, Prosigna^® or EndoPredict^®) may be used in node-negative ER-positive patients to establish a prognostic category and decide with the patient whether adjuvant treatment may be limited to hormonal therapy. Newer technologies including next-generation sequencing, liquid biopsy, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes or PD-1 determination are at this point investigational.     

A definition for aggressive disease in patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

Purpose

To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology.

Methods

A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement.

Results

Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12–24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival.

Conclusions

High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches.

     

Consensus of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) Brachytherapy Group on brachytherapy in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequent neoplasia in women. Randomized studies which compare mastectomy with conservative treatment show no differences in global survival. In cases in which conservative surgery is performed, breast radiation therapy and boost reduces the rate of local recurrence. On March 2010, the 8th Consensus Meeting of the Spanish Society for Radiation Oncology (SEOR) Brachytherapy Group was held in Madrid about «Treatment of Breast Cancer with Brachytherapy». In this article we presented the conclusions about brachytherapy boost, Partial breast irradiation and clinical dosimetry.     

2018 consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of unknown primary

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is defined as a heterogeneous group of tumours that present with metastasis, and in which attempts to identify the original site have failed. They differ from other primary tumours in their biological features and how they spread, which means that they can be considered a separate entity. There are several hypotheses regarding their origin, but the most plausible explanation for their aggressiveness and chemoresistance seems to involve chromosomal instability. Depending on the type of study done, CUP can account for 2–9% of all cancer patients, mostly 60–75 years old. This article reviews the main clinical, pathological, and molecular studies conducted to analyse and determine the origin of CUP. The main strategies for patient management and treatment, by both clinicians and pathologists, are also addressed.