PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer provides critical information about tumor response; how best to leverage this for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not established. The I-SPY 1 TRIAL (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging and Molecular Analysis) was a multicenter breast cancer study integrating clinical, imaging, and genomic data to evaluate pathologic response, RFS, and their relationship and predictability based on tumor biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors ≥ 3 cm and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We determined associations between pathologic complete response (pCR; defined as the absence of invasive cancer in breast and nodes) and RFS, overall and within receptor subsets. RESULTS: In 221 evaluable patients (median tumor size, 6.0 cm; median age, 49 years; 91% classified as poor risk on the basis of the 70-gene prognosis profile), 41% were hormone receptor (HR) negative, and 31% were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive. For 190 patients treated without neoadjuvant trastuzumab, pCR was highest for HR-negative/HER2-positive patients (45%) and lowest for HR-positive/HER2-negative patients (9%). Achieving pCR predicted favorable RFS. For 172 patients treated without trastuzumab, the hazard ratio for RFS of pCR versus no pCR was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.82). pCR was more predictive of RFS by multivariate analysis when subtype was taken into account, and point estimates of hazard ratios within the HR-positive/HER2-negative (hazard ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.93), HR-negative/HER2-negative (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.97), and HER2-positive (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.0) subtypes are lower. Ki67 further improved the prediction of pCR within subsets. CONCLUSION: In this biologically high-risk group, pCR differs by receptor subset. pCR is more highly predictive of RFS within every established receptor subset than overall, demonstrating that the extent of outcome advantage conferred by pCR is specific to tumor biology.
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer provides critical information about tumor response; how best to leverage this for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) is not established. The I-SPY 1 TRIAL (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging and Molecular Analysis) was a multicenter breast cancer study integrating clinical, imaging, and genomic data to evaluate pathologic response, RFS, and their relationship and predictability based on tumor biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors ≥ 3 cm and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We determined associations between pathologic complete response (pCR; defined as the absence of invasive cancer in breast and nodes) and RFS, overall and within receptor subsets. RESULTS: In 221 evaluable patients (median tumor size, 6.0 cm; median age, 49 years; 91% classified as poor risk on the basis of the 70-gene prognosis profile), 41% were hormone receptor (HR) negative, and 31% were humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive. For 190 patients treated without neoadjuvant trastuzumab, pCR was highest for HR-negative/HER2-positive patients (45%) and lowest for HR-positive/HER2-negative patients (9%). Achieving pCR predicted favorable RFS. For 172 patients treated without trastuzumab, the hazard ratio for RFS of pCR versus no pCR was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.82). pCR was more predictive of RFS by multivariate analysis when subtype was taken into account, and point estimates of hazard ratios within the HR-positive/HER2-negative (hazard ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.93), HR-negative/HER2-negative (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.97), and HER2-positive (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.0) subtypes are lower. Ki67 further improved the prediction of pCR within subsets. CONCLUSION: In this biologically high-risk group, pCR differs by receptor subset. pCR is more highly predictive of RFS within every established receptor subset than overall, demonstrating that the extent of outcome advantage conferred by pCR is specific to tumor biology.
Authors: Nola M Hylton; Jeffrey D Blume; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Mark A Rosen; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Constance D Lehman; Gillian M Newstead; Sandra Polin; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Kelly K Hunt; Ping Liu; Lajos Pusztai; W Fraser Symmans; Henry M Kuerer; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Donald A Berry; Constance Cirrincione; I Craig Henderson; Marc L Citron; Daniel R Budman; Lori J Goldstein; Silvana Martino; Edith A Perez; Hyman B Muss; Larry Norton; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward H Romond; Edith A Perez; John Bryant; Vera J Suman; Charles E Geyer; Nancy E Davidson; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Silvana Martino; Soonmyung Paik; Peter A Kaufman; Sandra M Swain; Thomas M Pisansky; Louis Fehrenbacher; Leila A Kutteh; Victor G Vogel; Daniel W Visscher; Greg Yothers; Robert B Jenkins; Ann M Brown; Shaker R Dakhil; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Wilma L Lingle; Pamela M Klein; James N Ingle; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Peintinger; A U Buzdar; H M Kuerer; J A Mejia; C Hatzis; A M Gonzalez-Angulo; L Pusztai; F J Esteva; S S Dawood; M C Green; G N Hortobagyi; W F Symmans Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J M Cochran; S H Chung; A Leproux; W B Baker; D R Busch; A M DeMichele; J Tchou; B J Tromberg; A G Yodh Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: M D Galsky; W Xie; M Nakabayashi; R W Ross; F M Fennessy; C M Tempany; T K Choueiri; K Khine; P W Kantoff; M-E Taplin; W K Oh Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Woonyoung Choi; Sima Porten; Seungchan Kim; Daniel Willis; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Beat Roth; Tiewei Cheng; Mai Tran; I-Ling Lee; Jonathan Melquist; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Shizhen Zhang; Shanna Pretzsch; Keith Baggerly; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Bogdan Czerniak; Colin P N Dinney; David J McConkey Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 41.316