Validation of Residual Proliferative Cancer Burden as a Predictor of Long-Term Outcome Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer.
Breast cancer
Ki67
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Residual cancer burden
Residual proliferative cancer burden
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
11
03
2020
accepted:
12
06
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
4
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The integration of residual cancer burden (RCB) and post-treatment Ki67 as residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been proposed as a stronger predictor of long-term outcome in unselected patients with breast cancer (BC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), as compared with RCB. However, no specific analysis in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC is available so far. A cohort of 130 patients with HR+/HER2- BC who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 was included. Archival surgical specimens were evaluated for RCB. RPCB was calculated by combining RCB and Ki67 as previously described. Patients were categorized in four RCB and RPCB categories (pathological complete response and tertiles). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Overall change of χ RPCB was calculated for 85 patients. After a median follow up of 8.5 years, RCB was associated with OS (p = .048) but not with DFS (p = .152); RPCB was instead significantly associated with both DFS and OS (p = .034 and p < .001, respectively). In terms of OS, RPCB provided a significant amount of prognostic information beyond RCB (∆χ This is the first study evaluating RPCB in patients with HR+/HER2- BC treated with NACT. In this independent cohort, RPCB was a strong predictor of DFS and OS. The better performance of RPCB versus RCB was in part due to the ability of RPCB to discriminate a subgroup of patients with a particularly worse prognosis after NACT, who may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating novel adjuvant strategies. The present work validated residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) as a strong predictor of long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, results from the present study suggest RPCB as a promising tool to identify patients with HR+/HER2- BC who might potentially benefit from the inclusion in clinical trials evaluating novel or escalated postneoadjuvant treatment strategies because it allowed to discriminate a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis despite having received subsequent endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The integration of residual cancer burden (RCB) and post-treatment Ki67 as residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been proposed as a stronger predictor of long-term outcome in unselected patients with breast cancer (BC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), as compared with RCB. However, no specific analysis in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC is available so far.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A cohort of 130 patients with HR+/HER2- BC who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 was included. Archival surgical specimens were evaluated for RCB. RPCB was calculated by combining RCB and Ki67 as previously described. Patients were categorized in four RCB and RPCB categories (pathological complete response and tertiles). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Overall change of χ
RESULTS
RPCB was calculated for 85 patients. After a median follow up of 8.5 years, RCB was associated with OS (p = .048) but not with DFS (p = .152); RPCB was instead significantly associated with both DFS and OS (p = .034 and p < .001, respectively). In terms of OS, RPCB provided a significant amount of prognostic information beyond RCB (∆χ
CONCLUSION
This is the first study evaluating RPCB in patients with HR+/HER2- BC treated with NACT. In this independent cohort, RPCB was a strong predictor of DFS and OS. The better performance of RPCB versus RCB was in part due to the ability of RPCB to discriminate a subgroup of patients with a particularly worse prognosis after NACT, who may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating novel adjuvant strategies.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The present work validated residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) as a strong predictor of long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, results from the present study suggest RPCB as a promising tool to identify patients with HR+/HER2- BC who might potentially benefit from the inclusion in clinical trials evaluating novel or escalated postneoadjuvant treatment strategies because it allowed to discriminate a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis despite having received subsequent endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32618068
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0201
pmc: PMC7485331
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hormones
0
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1355-e1362Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Feb;37(2):155-61
pubmed: 21111561
Oncology. 2010;79(3-4):255-61
pubmed: 21372600
Chin Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep;4(3):34
pubmed: 26408301
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul;144(7):1347-1355
pubmed: 29675790
Ann Oncol. 2009 Jul;20(7):1193-8
pubmed: 19221152
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;28(10):1684-91
pubmed: 20194857
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380(7):617-628
pubmed: 30516102
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Jul;116(1):53-68
pubmed: 18592370
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 1;376(22):2147-2159
pubmed: 28564564
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008 Apr;61(4):569-77
pubmed: 17508214
Mol Oncol. 2011 Feb;5(1):5-23
pubmed: 21147047
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jan;26(1):75-80
pubmed: 25361988
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1796-804
pubmed: 22508812
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 1;100(19):1380-8
pubmed: 18812550
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Sep;64:12-21
pubmed: 27323347
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(10):2153
pubmed: 29733336
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan 10;31(2):203-9
pubmed: 23233704
Clin Breast Cancer. 2015 Oct;15(5):325-31
pubmed: 25913905
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2294-302
pubmed: 15197190
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 1;25(28):4414-22
pubmed: 17785706
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Aug 15;19(16):4521-31
pubmed: 23812670
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72
pubmed: 24529560
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 10;30(26):3242-9
pubmed: 22649152