Residual Cancer Burden Class Associated with Survival Outcomes in Women with Different Phenotypic Subtypes of Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
28
12
2021
accepted:
01
07
2022
pubmed:
19
8
2022
medline:
11
11
2022
entrez:
18
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The residual cancer burden class informs survival outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the prognostic ability of the RCB for survival outcomes in women with different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Additional variables were assessed for inclusion with the RCB to further improve the model's discriminative ability. We conducted a retrospective review of patients completing at least 75% of the recommended cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. Phenotypic subtypes were defined by hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status at diagnosis, classified as HR+/HER2-, HER2+, or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The RCB class was calculated and survival endpoints of overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. The discriminative ability of the models was quantified by Harrell's C-index. Overall, 532 women met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 65 months. In univariate models, RCB was significantly associated with OS, RFS, and DRFS. The RCB class had good discriminative ability for OS, RFS, and DRFS survival, with Harrell's C-indices of 0.68, 0.67, and 0.68, respectively. The RCB class discriminated well for each survival endpoint within HER2+ and TNBC, but did not discriminate well for HR+/HER2- (OS Harrell's C-indices of 0.77, 0.75, and 0.52, respectively). The RCB class was prognostic for OS, RFS, and DRFS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but prognostic discrimination between patients with subtype HR+/HER2- was not observed during the follow-up period for which the overall event rate was low.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The residual cancer burden class informs survival outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the prognostic ability of the RCB for survival outcomes in women with different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Additional variables were assessed for inclusion with the RCB to further improve the model's discriminative ability.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective review of patients completing at least 75% of the recommended cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. Phenotypic subtypes were defined by hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status at diagnosis, classified as HR+/HER2-, HER2+, or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The RCB class was calculated and survival endpoints of overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. The discriminative ability of the models was quantified by Harrell's C-index.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 532 women met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 65 months. In univariate models, RCB was significantly associated with OS, RFS, and DRFS. The RCB class had good discriminative ability for OS, RFS, and DRFS survival, with Harrell's C-indices of 0.68, 0.67, and 0.68, respectively. The RCB class discriminated well for each survival endpoint within HER2+ and TNBC, but did not discriminate well for HR+/HER2- (OS Harrell's C-indices of 0.77, 0.75, and 0.52, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The RCB class was prognostic for OS, RFS, and DRFS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but prognostic discrimination between patients with subtype HR+/HER2- was not observed during the follow-up period for which the overall event rate was low.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35980548
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12300-x
pii: 10.1245/s10434-022-12300-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8060-8069Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Spring L, Greenup R, Niemierko A, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term outcomes among young women with breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(10):1216–23.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0158
pubmed: 28982747
Zhang P, Yin Y, Mo H, et al. Better pathologic complete response and relapse-free survival after carboplatin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial. Oncotarget. 2016;7(37):60647–56.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10607
pubmed: 27447966
pmcid: 5312408
Li X, Yang J, Peng L, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer has worse overall survival and cause-specific survival than non-triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(2):279–87.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4059-6
pubmed: 27888421
Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–2581.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147
pubmed: 18250347
Gupta G, Lee CD, Guye ML, et al. Unmet clinical need: Developing prognostic biomarkers and precision medicine to forecast early tumor relapse, detect chemo-resistance and improve overall survival in high-risk breast cancer. Ann Breast Cancer Ther. 2020;4(1):48–57.
pubmed: 32542231
pmcid: 7295150
Setiawan VW, Monroe KR, Wilkens LR, et al. Breast cancer risk factors defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(10):1251–9.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp036
pubmed: 19318616
pmcid: 2727208
Demonty G, Bernard-Marty C, Puglisi F, et al. Progress and new standards of care in the management of HER-2 positive breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(3):497–509.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.020
pubmed: 17223541
Saw S, Lim J, Lim SH, et al. Patterns of relapse after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: implications for surveillance in clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;177(1):197–206.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05290-0
pubmed: 31147984
Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414–22.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6823
pubmed: 17785706
Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, Yu X, Zhang Y, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049–60.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010
pubmed: 28135148
pmcid: 5455352
Müller HD, Posch F, Suppan C, et al. Validation of residual cancer burden as prognostic factor for breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4274–83.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07741-w
pubmed: 31452052
pmcid: 6864028
Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: Breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(7):1783–5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6486-6 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6486-6
pubmed: 29671136
MD Anderson Cancer Center. Residual Cancer Burden Calculator. MD Anderson Cancer Center website. Available at: http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3 . Accessed from 17 Jun 2021.
Campbell JI, Yau C, Krass P, et al. Comparison of residual cancer burden, American Joint Committee on Cancer staging and pathologic complete response in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):181–91.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4303-8
pubmed: 28577078
pmcid: 5653207
Choi M, Park YH, Ahn JS, et al. Assessment of pathologic response and long-term outcome in locally advanced breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of pathologic classification systems. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(3):475–89.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4008-4
pubmed: 27730423
Hamy AS, Darrigues L, Laas E, De Croze D, et al. Prognostic value of the Residual Cancer Burden index according to breast cancer subtype: Validation on a cohort of BC patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234191.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234191
pubmed: 32579551
pmcid: 7313974
Sheri A, Smith IE, Johnston SR, A’Hern R, et al. Residual proliferative cancer burden to predict long-term outcome following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(1):75–80.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu508
pubmed: 25361988
Lee HJ, Park IA, Song IH, Kim SB, et al. Comparison of pathologic response evaluation systems after anthracycline with/without taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy among different subtypes of breast cancers. PloS One. 2015;10(9):e0137885.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137885
pubmed: 26394326
pmcid: 4578929
Howlader N, Cronin KA, Kurian AW, et al. Differences in breast cancer survival by molecular subtypes in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2018;27(6):619–26.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0627
von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, Loibl S, et al. for the KATHERINE Investigators: trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):617–28.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147–59.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
pubmed: 28564564