Diagnosing Pathologic Complete Response in the Breast After Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients by Minimal Invasive Biopsy: Oral Presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Friday, December 13, 2019, Program Number GS5-03.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2022
01 03 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
14
7
2020
medline:
19
2
2022
entrez:
14
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We evaluated the ability of minimally invasive, image-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) to reliably diagnose a pathologic complete response in the breast (pCR-B). Neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) elicits a pathologic complete response in up to 80% of women with breast cancer. In such cases, breast surgery, the gold standard for confirming pCR-B, may be considered overtreatment. This multicenter, prospective trial enrolled 452 women presenting with initial stage 1-3 breast cancer of all biological subtypes. Fifty-four women dropped out; 398 were included in the full analysis. All participants had an imaging-confirmed partial or complete response to NST and underwent study-specific image-guided VAB before guideline-adherent breast surgery. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate (FNR) of VAB-confirmed pCR-B. Image-guided VAB alone did not detect surgically confirmed residual tumor in 37 of 208 women [FNR, 17.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12.8-23.7%]. Of these 37 women, 12 (32.4%) had residual DCIS only, 20 (54.1%) had minimal residual tumor (<5 mm), and 19 of 25 (76.0%) exhibited invasive cancer cellularity of ≤10%. In 19 of the 37 cases (51.4%), the false-negative result was potentially avoidable. Exploratory analysis showed that performing VAB with the largest needle by volume (7-gauge) resulted in no false-negative results and that combining imaging and image-guided VAB into a single diagnostic test lowered the FNR to 6.2% (95% CI, 3.4%-10.5%). Image-guided VAB missed residual disease more often than expected. Refinements in procedure and patient selection seem possible and necessary before omitting breast surgery.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
We evaluated the ability of minimally invasive, image-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) to reliably diagnose a pathologic complete response in the breast (pCR-B).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) elicits a pathologic complete response in up to 80% of women with breast cancer. In such cases, breast surgery, the gold standard for confirming pCR-B, may be considered overtreatment.
METHODS
This multicenter, prospective trial enrolled 452 women presenting with initial stage 1-3 breast cancer of all biological subtypes. Fifty-four women dropped out; 398 were included in the full analysis. All participants had an imaging-confirmed partial or complete response to NST and underwent study-specific image-guided VAB before guideline-adherent breast surgery. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate (FNR) of VAB-confirmed pCR-B.
RESULTS
Image-guided VAB alone did not detect surgically confirmed residual tumor in 37 of 208 women [FNR, 17.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12.8-23.7%]. Of these 37 women, 12 (32.4%) had residual DCIS only, 20 (54.1%) had minimal residual tumor (<5 mm), and 19 of 25 (76.0%) exhibited invasive cancer cellularity of ≤10%. In 19 of the 37 cases (51.4%), the false-negative result was potentially avoidable. Exploratory analysis showed that performing VAB with the largest needle by volume (7-gauge) resulted in no false-negative results and that combining imaging and image-guided VAB into a single diagnostic test lowered the FNR to 6.2% (95% CI, 3.4%-10.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Image-guided VAB missed residual disease more often than expected. Refinements in procedure and patient selection seem possible and necessary before omitting breast surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32657944
pii: 00000658-202203000-00026
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004246
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
576-581Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interests.
Références
Murphy BL, Day CN, Hoskin TL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in breast cancer is greatest in excellent responders: triple-negative and HER2+ subtypes. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25:2241–2248.
van Ramshorst MS, van der Voort A, van Werkhoven ED, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines in the presence of dual HER2 blockade for HER2-positive breast cancer (TRAIN-2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:1630–1640.
Santonja A, Sánchez-Muñoz A, Lluch A, et al. Triple negative breast cancer subtypes and pathologic complete response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncotarget 2018; 9:26406–26416.
Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, et al. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 170:559–567.
Goorts B, van Nijnatten TJ, de Munck L, et al. Clinical tumor stage is the most important predictor of pathological complete response rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 163:83–91.
Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN. Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology 2017; 285:358–375.
Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Kuerer HM, et al. Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208:290–299.
Croshaw R, Shapiro-Wright H, Svensson E, et al. Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18:3160–3163.
Chagpar AB, Middleton LP, Sahin AA, et al. Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 2006; 243:257–264.
Moskovic EC, Mansi JL, King DM, et al. Mammography in the assessment of response to medical treatment of large primary breast cancer. Clin Radiol 1993; 47:339–344.
Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105:321–333.
Yuan Y, Chen XS, Liu SY, et al. Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195:260–268.
Sheikhbahaei S, Trahan TJ, Xiao J, et al. FDG-PET/CT and MRI for evaluation of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Oncologist 2016; 21:931–939.
Li H, Yao L, Jin P, et al. MRI and PET/CT for evaluation of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2018; 40:106–115.
Heil J, Kuerer HM, Pfob A, et al. Eliminating the breast cancer surgery paradigm after neoadjuvant systemic therapy: current evidence and future challenges. Ann Oncol 2020; 31:61–71.
Asselain B, Barlow W, Bartlett J, et al. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:27–39.
Heil J, Kummel S, Schaefgen B, et al. Diagnosis of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by minimal invasive biopsy techniques. Br J Cancer 2015; 113:1565–1570.
Heil J, Schaefgen B, Sinn P, et al. Can a pathological complete response of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy be diagnosed by minimal invasive biopsy? Eur J Cancer 2016; 69:142–150.
Kuerer HM, Rauch GM, Krishnamurthy S, et al. A clinical feasibility trial for identification of exceptional responders in whom breast cancer surgery can be eliminated following neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Ann Surg 2018; 267:946–951.
van der Noordaa MEM, van Duijnhoven FH, Loo CE, et al. Identifying pathologic complete response of the breast after neoadjuvant systemic therapy with ultrasound guided biopsy to eventually omit surgery: Study design and feasibility of the MICRA trial (Minimally Invasive Complete Response Assessment). Breast 2018; 40:76–81.
Basik M, Costantino JP, Santos JFDL, et al. NRG Oncology BR005: Phase II trial assessing accuracy of tumor bed biopsies (Bx) in predicting pathologic response in patients (Pts) with clinical/radiological complete response (CR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in order to explore the feasibility. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: (15 suppl): TS604–TS1604.
Kuerer HM. Eliminating Surgery After Systemic Therapy in Treating Patients With HER2 Positive or Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Clin Identifier NCT02945579 .
Heil J, Sinn P, Richter H, et al. RESPONDER—diagnosis of pathological complete response by vacuum-assisted biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer—a multicenter, confirmative, one-armed, intra-individually-controlled, open, diagnostic trial. BMC Cancer 2018; 18:
Schwartz LH, Litière S, de Vries E, et al. RECIST 1.1—update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62:132–137.
Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:454–463.
Wöckel A, Festl J, Stüber T, et al. Interdisciplinary screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of breast cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017)—part 1 with recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and therapy of breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78:927–948.
AGO Gyn. Guidelines of the AGO Breast Committee. Access . Available at: http://www.ago-online.de/en/guidelines-mamma/march-2016/ .
Provenzano E, Bossuyt V, Viale G, et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. Mod Pathol 2015; 28:1185–1201.
Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L, et al. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002; 21:2527–2546.
Wallis CJD, Detsky AS, Fan E. Establishing the effectiveness of procedural interventions: the limited role of randomized trials. JAMA 2018; 320:2421–2422.
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1227–1232.
Lyman GH, Somerfield MR, Bosserman LD, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:561–564.
Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 318:918–926.
Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:79–82.
Gentilini O. Sentinel Node Vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-souND (SOUND). Clin Identifier NCT02167490 .
Reimer T. Omission of SLNB in Triple-negative and HER2-positive Breast Cancer Patients With rCR and pCR in the Breast After NAST. Clin Identifier NCT04101851 .
Reimer T, Stachs A, Nekljudova V, et al. Restricted axillary staging in clinically and sonographically node-negative early invasive breast cancer (c/iT1-2) in the context of breast conserving therapy: first results following commencement of the Intergroup-Sentinel-Mamma (INSEMA) trial. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77:149–157.
Henke G, Knauer M, Ribi K, et al. Tailored axillary surgery with or without axillary lymph node dissection followed by radiotherapy in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer (TAXIS): study protocol for a multicenter, randomized phase-III trial. Trials 2018; 19:667.
Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S, et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:40–50.
von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 380:617–628.
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2147–2159.
Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:1303–1310.
Tadros AB, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Identification of patients with documented pathologic complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for omission of axillary surgery. JAMA Surg 2017; 152:665–670.
Barron AU, Hoskin TL, Day CN, et al. Association of low nodal positivity rate among patients with ERBB2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer and breast pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Surg 2018; 153:1120–1126.
Samiei S, van Nijnatten TJA, de Munck L, et al. Correlation between pathologic complete response in the breast and absence of axillary lymph node metastases after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Ann Surg 2020; 271:574–580.