Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients.
Journal
The Lancet. Oncology
ISSN: 1474-5488
Titre abrégé: Lancet Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100957246
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
29
07
2021
revised:
06
10
2021
accepted:
07
10
2021
pubmed:
14
12
2021
medline:
25
2
2022
entrez:
13
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous studies have independently validated the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used results from several independent cohorts in a pooled patient-level analysis to evaluate the relationship of RCB with long-term prognosis across different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer, to assess generalisability in a broad range of practice settings. In this pooled analysis, 12 institutes and trials in Europe and the USA were identified by personal communications with site investigators. We obtained participant-level RCB results, and data on clinical and pathological stage, tumour subtype and grade, and treatment and follow-up in November, 2019, from patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We assessed the association between the continuous RCB score and the primary study outcome, event-free survival, using mixed-effects Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneity, and stratification to account for differences in baseline hazard across cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status and HER2 status. The association was further evaluated within each breast cancer subtype in multivariable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment clinical T category, nodal status, and tumour grade. Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival at 3, 5, and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within each subtype. We analysed participant-level data from 5161 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Sept 12, 1994, and Feb 11, 2019. Median age was 49 years (IQR 20-80). 1164 event-free survival events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up 56 months [IQR 0-186]). RCB score was prognostic within each breast cancer subtype, with higher RCB score significantly associated with worse event-free survival. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) associated with one unit increase in RCB ranged from 1·55 (95% CI 1·41-1·71) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients to 2·16 (1·79-2·61) for the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (with or without HER2-targeted therapy; p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score remained prognostic for event-free survival in multivariable models adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status at baseline: the adjusted HR ranged from 1·52 (1·36-1·69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2·09 (1·73-2·53) in the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score and class were independently prognostic in all subtypes of breast cancer, and generalisable to multiple practice settings. Although variability in hormone receptor subtype definitions and treatment across patients are likely to affect prognostic performance, the association we observed between RCB and a patient's residual risk suggests that prospective evaluation of RCB could be considered to become part of standard pathology reporting after neoadjuvant therapy. National Cancer Institute at the US National Institutes of Health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have independently validated the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used results from several independent cohorts in a pooled patient-level analysis to evaluate the relationship of RCB with long-term prognosis across different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer, to assess generalisability in a broad range of practice settings.
METHODS
In this pooled analysis, 12 institutes and trials in Europe and the USA were identified by personal communications with site investigators. We obtained participant-level RCB results, and data on clinical and pathological stage, tumour subtype and grade, and treatment and follow-up in November, 2019, from patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We assessed the association between the continuous RCB score and the primary study outcome, event-free survival, using mixed-effects Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneity, and stratification to account for differences in baseline hazard across cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status and HER2 status. The association was further evaluated within each breast cancer subtype in multivariable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment clinical T category, nodal status, and tumour grade. Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival at 3, 5, and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within each subtype.
FINDINGS
We analysed participant-level data from 5161 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Sept 12, 1994, and Feb 11, 2019. Median age was 49 years (IQR 20-80). 1164 event-free survival events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up 56 months [IQR 0-186]). RCB score was prognostic within each breast cancer subtype, with higher RCB score significantly associated with worse event-free survival. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) associated with one unit increase in RCB ranged from 1·55 (95% CI 1·41-1·71) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients to 2·16 (1·79-2·61) for the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (with or without HER2-targeted therapy; p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score remained prognostic for event-free survival in multivariable models adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status at baseline: the adjusted HR ranged from 1·52 (1·36-1·69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2·09 (1·73-2·53) in the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (p<0·0001 for all subtypes).
INTERPRETATION
RCB score and class were independently prognostic in all subtypes of breast cancer, and generalisable to multiple practice settings. Although variability in hormone receptor subtype definitions and treatment across patients are likely to affect prognostic performance, the association we observed between RCB and a patient's residual risk suggests that prospective evaluation of RCB could be considered to become part of standard pathology reporting after neoadjuvant therapy.
FUNDING
National Cancer Institute at the US National Institutes of Health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34902335
pii: S1470-2045(21)00589-1
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1
pmc: PMC9455620
mid: NIHMS1833556
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
ERBB2 protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
149-160Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 29567
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 16942
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : P20 GM130423
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA015083
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA210961
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA116201
Pays : United States
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 21491
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Kathi Adamson
(K)
Kathy S Albain
(KS)
Adam L Asare
(AL)
Smita M Asare
(SM)
Ron Balassanian
(R)
Heather Beckwith
(H)
Scott M Berry
(SM)
Donald A Berry
(DA)
Judy C Boughey
(JC)
Meredith B Buxton
(MB)
Yunn-Yi Chen
(YY)
Beiyun Chen
(B)
A Jo Chien
(AJ)
Stephen Y Chui
(SY)
Amy S Clark
(AS)
Julia L Clennell
(JL)
Brian Datnow
(B)
Angela M DeMichele
(AM)
Xiuzhen Duan
(X)
Kirsten K Edmiston
(KK)
Anthony D Elias
(AD)
Erin D Ellis
(ED)
Laura L Esserman
(LL)
David M Euhus
(DM)
Oluwole Fadare
(O)
Fang Fan
(F)
Michael D Feldman
(MD)
Andres Forero-Torres
(A)
Barbara B Haley
(BB)
Hyo S Han
(HS)
Shuko Harada
(S)
Patricia Haugen
(P)
Teresa Helsten
(T)
Gillian L Hirst
(GL)
Nola M Hylton
(NM)
Claudine Isaacs
(C)
Kathleen Kemmer
(K)
Qamar J Khan
(QJ)
Laila Khazai
(L)
Molly E Klein
(ME)
Gregor Krings
(G)
Julie E Lang
(JE)
Lauren G LeBeau
(LG)
Brian Leyland-Jones
(B)
Minetta C Liu
(MC)
Shelly Lo
(S)
Janice Lu
(J)
Anthony Magliocco
(A)
Jeffrey B Matthews
(JB)
Michelle E Melisko
(ME)
Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia
(P)
Stacy L Moulder
(SL)
Rashmi K Murthy
(RK)
Rita Nanda
(R)
Donald W Northfelt
(DW)
Idris T Ocal
(IT)
Olufunmilayo Olopade
(O)
Stefan Pambuccian
(S)
Melissa Paoloni
(M)
John W Park
(JW)
Barbara A Parker
(BA)
Jane Perlmutter
(J)
Garry Peterson
(G)
Lajos Pusztai
(L)
Mara Rendi
(M)
Hope S Rugo
(HS)
Sunati Sahoo
(S)
Sharon Sams
(S)
Ashish Sanil
(A)
Husain Sattar
(H)
Richard B Schwab
(RB)
Ruby Singhrao
(R)
Katherine Steeg
(K)
Erica Stringer-Reasor
(E)
W Fraser Symmans
(WF)
Ossama Tawfik
(O)
Debasish Tripathy
(D)
Megan L Troxell
(ML)
Laura J Van't Veer
(LJ)
Sara J Venters
(SJ)
Tuyethoa Vinh
(T)
Rebecca K Viscusi
(RK)
Anne M Wallace
(AM)
Shi Wei
(S)
Amy Wilson
(A)
Christina Yau
(C)
Douglas Yee
(D)
Jay C Zeck
(JC)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests AKG reports personal fees from Sinochips Diagnostics. CC reports institutional funding from Genentech, Roche, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and participation in a data and safety monitoring advisory board for iMED External Science Panel. CY reports institutional funding from Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative. DC reports institutional research funding from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eli-Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Synthon, Seagen, Zymeworks, Elsevier, European Cancer Organisation, Celgene, Succinct Medical Communications, Prima BioMed (now Immutep), Oncolytics Biotech (US), Celldex Therapeutics, San Antonio Breast Cancer Consortium, Highfield Communication, Samsung Bioepis, prIME Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Prima BioMed (now Immutep), RTI Health Solutions, and Eisai. WFS owns stocks in Delphi Diagnostics; and reports the patent “method of measuring residual cancer and predicting patient survival” (US Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] number 7711494B2). GSS reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche. HE reports institutional research funding from Roche Sanofi-Aventis; is a consultant for Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and prIME Oncology; and reports travel support from Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Amgen. JEA reports institutional research funding from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai. JMSB reports grants from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Geoptix, Agendia, NanoString Technologies, Stratifyer, and Biotheranostics; is a consultant for Insight Genetics, BioNTech, Biotheranostics, Pfizer, RNA Diagnostics, and OncoXchange; reports honoraria from NanoString Technology, Oncology Education, and Biotheranostics; reports travel support from Biotheranostics and Nanostring Technologies; reports patents “histone gene module predicts anthracycline benefit” (Patent Cooperation Treaty [PCT] number CA2016/000247); “95-gene signature of residual risk following endocrine treatment” (PCT number CA2016/000304); “immune gene signature predicts anthracycline benefit” (PCT number CA2016/000305); and applied for patents “methods and devices for predicting anthracycline treatment efficacy” (USPTO application number 15/325,472; European Patent Office number 15822898.1; Canada, not yet assigned) and “systems, devices and methods for constructing and using a biomarker” (USPTO application number 15/328,108; European Patent Office number 15824751.0; Canada, not yet assigned). JCB reports institutional research funding from Eli Lilly. LP is a consultant for and receives honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Genentech, Eisai, Pieris, Immunomedics, Seattle Genetics, Almac, H3 Biomedicine, Clovis, and Syndax; and reports the patent “method of measuring residual cancer and predicting patient survival” (US Patent Number 7711494B2). LaH reports individual research grants from Roche and Sanofi-Aventis; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. LJE reports institutional research funding from Merck; participation in an advisory board for Blue Cross Blue Shield; and personal fees from UpToDate. LJvV is an employee of and owns stock in Agendia. MPG reports individual research grants from Pfizer, Sermonix, and Eli Lilly; and is a consultant for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Biotheranostics, Sermonix, Context Therapeutics, and Eagle Therapeutics. MM reports grants from Roche, Puma, and Novartis; is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Glaxo, Taiho Oncology, Roche, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer; reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer; and reports personal fees from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. PS reports institutional research funding from Novartis, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and is a consultant for Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Immunomedics, AstraZeneca, and ExactSciences. SL-T has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Pierre-Fabre, Eisai, and Eli Lilly; reports honoraria from Eli Lilly; and reports travel support from Novartis, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Pfizer. SBE reports institutional research funding from Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Mar;24(3):669-675
pubmed: 27770345
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Dec 1;24(23):5820-5829
pubmed: 30061361
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Oct;15(10):1216-1223
pubmed: 28982747
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3997-4013
pubmed: 24101045
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):656-66
pubmed: 25975632
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Apr 15;24(8):1845-1852
pubmed: 29378733
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 1;25(28):4414-22
pubmed: 17785706
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug 17;4:26
pubmed: 30131975
Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10
pubmed: 1757079
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;165(1):181-191
pubmed: 28577078
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):188-94
pubmed: 15687361
JAMA. 2003 Mar 19;289(11):1421-4
pubmed: 12636465
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 24;15(6):e0234191
pubmed: 32579551
Mod Pathol. 2015 Jul;28(7):913-20
pubmed: 25932963
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 01;28(8):1817-1824
pubmed: 28459938
Histopathology. 2017 Jan;70(2):217-222
pubmed: 27496095
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 15;25(16):4985-4992
pubmed: 31076546
Eur J Cancer (1965). 1980 Mar;16(3):351-6
pubmed: 7371690
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(10):3153-61
pubmed: 27380637
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Aug;16(8):2672-85
pubmed: 9704717
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2020303
pubmed: 33074325
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1700-1712
pubmed: 28838210
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Nov;20(12):3823-30
pubmed: 23780381
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380(7):617-628
pubmed: 30516102
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Nov 01;7(11):1654-1663
pubmed: 34529000
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72
pubmed: 24529560
N Engl J Med. 1985 Mar 14;312(11):665-73
pubmed: 3883167
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1049-1060
pubmed: 28135148
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 1;376(22):2147-2159
pubmed: 28564564
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1355-1362
pubmed: 32701140
Ann Oncol. 2021 May;32(5):642-651
pubmed: 33617937