Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: Varlitinib is a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and HER4. We present a phase Ib/II study of a combination of varlitinib and weekly paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Materials and Methods: Patients whose tumors with EGFR and HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (≥ 1+) were enrolled. Varlitinib and paclitaxel were investigated every 4 weeks. After determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in phase Ib, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity. Results: RP2D was treated with a combination of varlitinib (300 mg twice daily) and paclitaxel. Among 27 patients treated with RP2D, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 4.9) and 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8), respectively, with a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Among 16 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 31% and 88%, respectively. Patients with strong HER2 expression (n=8) had a higher ORR and longer OS, whereas those with strong EGFR expression (n=3) had poorer outcomes. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade were neutropenia (52%), diarrhea (27%), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase elevation (22%), and nausea (19%). No treatment-related deaths or unexpected AEs resulting from treatment cessation were observed in patients with RP2D. Conclusion A combination of varlitinib and paclitaxel displayed manageable toxicity and modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFR/HER2 co-expressing AGC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, and is currently indicated as a standard treatment. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is an important biomarker for predicting response to anti–programmed death 1/PD-L1 agents in several solid tumors, including gastric cancer. In the CheckMate-649 trial, significant clinical improvements were observed in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5, determined using the 28-8 pharmDx assay. Accordingly, an accurate interpretation of PD-L1 CPS, especially at a cutoff of 5, is important. The CPS method evaluates both immune and tumor cells and provides a comprehensive assessment of PD-L1 expression in the tumor microenvironment of gastric cancer. However, CPS evaluation has several limitations, one of which is poor interobserver concordance among pathologists. Despite these limitations, clinical indications relying on PD-L1 CPS are increasing. In response, Korean gastrointestinal pathologists held a consensus meeting for the interpretation of PD-L1 CPS in gastric cancer. Eleven pathologists reviewed 20 PD-L1 slides with a CPS cutoff close to 5, stained with the 28-8 pharmDx assay, and determined the consensus scores. The issues observed in discrepant cases were discussed. In this review, we present cases of gastric cancer with consensus PD-L1 CPS. In addition, we briefly touch upon current practices and clinical issues associated with assays used for the assessment of PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer.

Background/Aims: AT-rich interactive domain 1A (ARID1A) is frequently mutated in gastric cancer (GC), especially Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated and microsatellite instability high GC.The loss of ARID1A expression has been reported as a poor prognostic marker in GC. However, the relationships between ARID1A alteration and EBV-associated and microsatellite instability high GC, which are known to have a favorable prognosis, has hampered proper evaluation of the prognostic significance of ARID1A expression in GC. We aimed to analyze the true prognostic significance of ARID1A expression by correcting confounding variables. Methods: We evaluated the ARID1A expression in a large series (n=1,032) of advanced GC and analyzed the relationships between expression pattern and variable parameters, including clinicopathologic factors, key molecular features such as EBV-positivity, mismatch repair protein deficiency, and expression of p53 and several receptor tyrosine kinases including human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor. Survival analysis of the molecular subtypes was done according to the ARID1A expression patterns. Results: Loss of ARID1A expression was found in 52.5% (53/101) of mutL homolog 1 (MLH1)-deficient and 35.8% (24/67) of EBV-positive GCs, compared with only 9.6% (82/864) of the MLH1-proficient and EBV-negative group (p<0.001). The loss of ARID1A expression was associated only with MLH1 deficiency and EBV positivity. On survival analysis, the loss of ARID1A expression was associated with worse prognosis only in MLH1-proficient and EBV-negative GC. Multivariate analysis revealed that both loss of ARID1A and decreased ARID1A expression were independent worse prognostic factors in patients with advanced GC. Conclusions Only in MLH1-proficient and EBV-negative GC, the loss of ARID1A expression is related to poorer prognosis.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements.The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.

The first edition of ‘A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer’ was initiated by the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists and published 17 years ago. Since then, significant advances have been made in the pathologic diagnosis, molecular genetics, and management of gastric cancer (GC). To reflect those changes, a committee for publishing a second edition of the report was formed within the Gastrointestinal Pathology Study Group of the Korean Society of Pathologists. This second edition consists of two parts: standard data elements and conditional data elements. The standard data elements contain the basic pathologic findings and items necessary to predict the prognosis of GC patients, and they are adequate for routine surgical pathology service. Other diagnostic and prognostic factors relevant to adjuvant therapy, including molecular biomarkers, are classified as conditional data elements to allow each pathologist to selectively choose items appropriate to the environment in their institution. We trust that the standardized pathology report will be helpful for GC diagnosis and facilitate large-scale multidisciplinary collaborative studies.