Dear Editor,

We read with interest a recent study by Pons-Tostivint et al. \[[@bib1]\], assessing compliance of breast cancer (BC) care with EUSOMA \[[@bib2]\] quality indicators (QIs). As more and more studies evaluating the quality of BC care are using EUSOMA-QIs, we think it is important to clarify inconsistencies in their definitions which might have influenced the results of this study and similar ones \[[@bib1],[@bib3], [@bib4], [@bib5]\].

Firstly, there is a discrepancy in the definition of hormone-positive (HR+) BC. Recent studies considered HR+ BC if immunostaining was seen in ≥1% tumor nuclei \[[@bib4],[@bib5]\] compared to Pons-Tostivint et al. \[[@bib1]\] using a cut-off value of ≥10%, which calls for unified definition of HR+ disease in EUSOMA-QIs to homogenise reporting.

Secondly, a refinement of the definition of QI 13a, which assesses the proportion of patients with ER-negative invasive carcinoma (T \>1 cm or N+) who received *adjuvant* chemotherapy, is needed. The authors reported that the proportion of patients who received *adjuvant* chemotherapy was lower than the mandatory 85% EUSOMA recommendation \[[@bib1]\], but did not clearly stated if patients receiving *neoadjuvant* chemotherapy were considered as being treated in discordance with QI 13a.

Refining the definitions of EUSOMA-QIs would make the results of such studies easier to compare.

Funding {#sec1}
=======

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of competing interest
=================================

None.
