BACKGROUND: Measurement of residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy that accurately predicts long-term survival in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is an essential requirement for clinical trials development. Several methods to assess tumor response have been described. However, the agreement between methods and correlation with survival in independent cohorts has not been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report survival and tumor response according to the measurement of residual breast cancer burden (RCB), the Miller and Payne classification and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, in 151 LABC patients. Kappa Cohen's coefficient (К) was used to test the agreement between methods. We assessed the correlation between the treatment outcome and overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) by calculating Harrell's C-statistic (c). RESULTS: The agreement between Miller and Payne classification and RCB classes was very high (К = 0.82). In contrast, we found a moderate-to-fair agreement between the Miller and Payne classification and RECIST criteria (К = 0.52) and RCB classes and RECIST criteria (К = 0.38). The adjusted C-statistic to predict OS for RCB index (0.77) and RCB classes (0.75) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.69) (P = 0.007 and P = 0.035, respectively). Also, RCB index (c = 0.71), RCB classes (c = 0.71) and Miller and Payne classification (c = 0.67) predicted better RFS than RECIST criteria (c = 0.61) (P = 0.005, P = 0.006 and P = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The pathological assessment of tumor response might provide stronger prognostic information in LABC patients.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy that accurately predicts long-term survival in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is an essential requirement for clinical trials development. Several methods to assess tumor response have been described. However, the agreement between methods and correlation with survival in independent cohorts has not been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report survival and tumor response according to the measurement of residual breast cancer burden (RCB), the Miller and Payne classification and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, in 151 LABC patients. Kappa Cohen's coefficient (К) was used to test the agreement between methods. We assessed the correlation between the treatment outcome and overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) by calculating Harrell's C-statistic (c). RESULTS: The agreement between Miller and Payne classification and RCB classes was very high (К = 0.82). In contrast, we found a moderate-to-fair agreement between the Miller and Payne classification and RECIST criteria (К = 0.52) and RCB classes and RECIST criteria (К = 0.38). The adjusted C-statistic to predict OS for RCB index (0.77) and RCB classes (0.75) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.69) (P = 0.007 and P = 0.035, respectively). Also, RCB index (c = 0.71), RCB classes (c = 0.71) and Miller and Payne classification (c = 0.67) predicted better RFS than RECIST criteria (c = 0.61) (P = 0.005, P = 0.006 and P = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The pathological assessment of tumor response might provide stronger prognostic information in LABC patients.
Authors: Daniel I Golden; Jafi A Lipson; Melinda L Telli; James M Ford; Daniel L Rubin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Caimiao Wei; Rebekah Gould; Xian Yu; Ya Zhang; Mei Liu; Andrew Walls; Alex Bousamra; Maheshwari Ramineni; Bruno Sinn; Kelly Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Vicente Valero; Aman U Buzdar; Wei Yang; Abenaa M Brewster; Stacy Moulder; Lajos Pusztai; Christos Hatzis; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Romero; A Prat; J A García-Sáenz; N Del Prado; A Pelayo; V Furió; J M Román; M de la Hoya; E Díaz-Rubio; C M Perou; T Cladés; M Martín Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Elena Provenzano; Veerle Bossuyt; Giuseppe Viale; David Cameron; Sunil Badve; Carsten Denkert; Gaëtan MacGrogan; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Judy Boughey; Giuseppe Curigliano; J Michael Dixon; Laura Esserman; Gerd Fastner; Thorsten Kuehn; Florentia Peintinger; Gunter von Minckwitz; Julia White; Wei Yang; W Fraser Symmans Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Khadijeh Saednia; Andrew Lagree; Marie A Alera; Lauren Fleshner; Audrey Shiner; Ethan Law; Brianna Law; David W Dodington; Fang-I Lu; William T Tran; Ali Sadeghi-Naini Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Atocha Romero; Francisco García-García; Irene López-Perolio; Gorka Ruiz de Garibay; José A García-Sáenz; Pilar Garre; Patricia Ayllón; Esperanza Benito; Joaquín Dopazo; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Trinidad Caldés; Miguel de la Hoya Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 4.430