Evaluating the impact of histological vs. nuclear grading on CPS + EG Score for HR + /HER2-early breast cancer.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
M Braun, M Hamann, C Hanusch, A Andrulat, E Bensmann, M Pölcher, M Beer, E Huber
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of histological vs. nuclear grading on CPS + EG Score for HR + /HER2-early breast cancer.","authors":"M Braun, M Hamann, C Hanusch, A Andrulat, E Bensmann, M Pölcher, M Beer, E Huber","doi":"10.1007/s10549-025-07685-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The CPS + EG score, widely used for risk assessment in high-risk HR + /HER2-early breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), integrates clinical and pathological staging, estrogen receptor status, and nuclear grading (nG). However, histological grading (hG) is often used in clinical practice due to better availability. This study aims to assess the concordance between nG and hG and examine their impact on CPS + EG scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Red Cross Hospital Munich with two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 610 consecutively treated patients in 2022 to evaluate the concordance of nG and hG scores. Cohort 2 involved 106 high-risk patients treated between 2019 and 2022, comparing CPS + EG scores calculated using nG versus hG values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Cohort 1, nG and hG were discordant in 31.2% of cases, with nG3 classifications outnumbering hG3. Cohort 2 showed a similar discordance rate of 33.0%, with more tumors classified as nG3 (52.8%) than hG3 (36.8%). Among non-pCR patients, a CPS + EG score of ≥ 3 was found in 29.7% of cases with nG, versus 19.0% with hG, indicating hG may underestimate risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using hG instead of nG for CPS + EG calculations may underestimate risks related to distant metastasis-free and disease-specific survival, suggesting a potential need for nG prioritization in clinical risk assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9133,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-025-07685-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The CPS + EG score, widely used for risk assessment in high-risk HR + /HER2-early breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), integrates clinical and pathological staging, estrogen receptor status, and nuclear grading (nG). However, histological grading (hG) is often used in clinical practice due to better availability. This study aims to assess the concordance between nG and hG and examine their impact on CPS + EG scores.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Red Cross Hospital Munich with two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 610 consecutively treated patients in 2022 to evaluate the concordance of nG and hG scores. Cohort 2 involved 106 high-risk patients treated between 2019 and 2022, comparing CPS + EG scores calculated using nG versus hG values.

Results: In Cohort 1, nG and hG were discordant in 31.2% of cases, with nG3 classifications outnumbering hG3. Cohort 2 showed a similar discordance rate of 33.0%, with more tumors classified as nG3 (52.8%) than hG3 (36.8%). Among non-pCR patients, a CPS + EG score of ≥ 3 was found in 29.7% of cases with nG, versus 19.0% with hG, indicating hG may underestimate risk.

Conclusion: Using hG instead of nG for CPS + EG calculations may underestimate risks related to distant metastasis-free and disease-specific survival, suggesting a potential need for nG prioritization in clinical risk assessments.

评估组织学分级与核分级对HR + / her2早期乳腺癌CPS + EG评分的影响。
目的:CPS + EG评分综合了临床和病理分期、雌激素受体状态和核分级(nG),广泛用于新辅助化疗(NAC)后高危HR + / her2早期乳腺癌的风险评估。然而,组织学分级(hG)通常用于临床实践,因为它的可用性更好。本研究旨在评估nG和hG之间的一致性,并研究它们对CPS + EG评分的影响。方法:回顾性分析在慕尼黑红十字医院进行的两个队列。队列1包括610名在2022年连续接受治疗的患者,以评估nG和hG评分的一致性。队列2纳入了2019年至2022年期间接受治疗的106名高危患者,比较了使用nG和hG值计算的CPS + EG评分。结果:在队列1中,31.2%的病例中nG和hG不一致,nG3分类多于hG3。队列2的不一致性率相似,为33.0%,其中nG3组(52.8%)多于hG3组(36.8%)。在非pcr患者中,29.7%的nG患者CPS + EG评分≥3,而hG患者为19.0%,表明hG可能低估了风险。结论:使用hG代替nG进行CPS + EG计算可能会低估与无远处转移和疾病特异性生存相关的风险,提示在临床风险评估中可能需要优先考虑nG。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
342
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment provides the surgeon, radiotherapist, medical oncologist, endocrinologist, epidemiologist, immunologist or cell biologist investigating problems in breast cancer a single forum for communication. The journal creates a "market place" for breast cancer topics which cuts across all the usual lines of disciplines, providing a site for presenting pertinent investigations, and for discussing critical questions relevant to the entire field. It seeks to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all those concerned with breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信