Patricia Cortazar1, Charles E Geyer. 1. Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA, patricia.cortazar@fda.hhs.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in using pathological complete response (pCR) as a potential surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in the neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: We review the clinical trials that have contributed to our understanding of the association between pCR and long-term outcomes, describe the various definitions of pCR, describe patient populations in which pCR may predict long-term benefit, and discuss the implications of pCR on drug development and accelerated approval for neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. RESULTS: Varying definitions of pCR across clinical trials conducted in heterogeneous patient populations make understanding the association of pCR with long-term outcomes challenging. The US Food and Drug Administration established the Collaborative Trials in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer group to evaluate the potential use of pCR as a regulatory endpoint. The group demonstrated that pCR defined as no residual invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes with presence or absence of in situ cancer (ypT0/is ypN0 or ypT0 ypN0) provided a better association with improved outcomes compared to eradication of invasive tumor from the breast alone (ypT0/is). CONCLUSION: Even though pCR was not validated as a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes, the promising data regarding the strong association of pCR with substantially improved outcomes in individual patients with more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer supported the opening of an accelerated approval pathway for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in using pathological complete response (pCR) as a potential surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in the neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: We review the clinical trials that have contributed to our understanding of the association between pCR and long-term outcomes, describe the various definitions of pCR, describe patient populations in which pCR may predict long-term benefit, and discuss the implications of pCR on drug development and accelerated approval for neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. RESULTS: Varying definitions of pCR across clinical trials conducted in heterogeneous patient populations make understanding the association of pCR with long-term outcomes challenging. The US Food and Drug Administration established the Collaborative Trials in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer group to evaluate the potential use of pCR as a regulatory endpoint. The group demonstrated that pCR defined as no residual invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes with presence or absence of in situ cancer (ypT0/is ypN0 or ypT0 ypN0) provided a better association with improved outcomes compared to eradication of invasive tumor from the breast alone (ypT0/is). CONCLUSION: Even though pCR was not validated as a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes, the promising data regarding the strong association of pCR with substantially improved outcomes in individual patients with more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer supported the opening of an accelerated approval pathway for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.
Authors: Wan Xing Hong; Sarah Haebe; Andrew S Lee; C Benedikt Westphalen; Jeffrey A Norton; Wen Jiang; Ronald Levy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Almir G V Bitencourt; Barbara S Pires; Vinicius F Calsavara; Erika M S Negrão; Juliana A Souza; Luciana Graziano; Camila S Guatelli; Fabiana B Makdissi; Solange M Sanches; Monique C Tavares; Cynthia A B T Osório; Marina De Brot; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hope S Rugo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Angela DeMichele; Christina Yau; Laura J van 't Veer; Meredith B Buxton; Michael Hogarth; Nola M Hylton; Melissa Paoloni; Jane Perlmutter; W Fraser Symmans; Douglas Yee; A Jo Chien; Anne M Wallace; Henry G Kaplan; Judy C Boughey; Tufia C Haddad; Kathy S Albain; Minetta C Liu; Claudine Isaacs; Qamar J Khan; Julie E Lang; Rebecca K Viscusi; Lajos Pusztai; Stacy L Moulder; Stephen Y Chui; Kathleen A Kemmer; Anthony D Elias; Kirsten K Edmiston; David M Euhus; Barbara B Haley; Rita Nanda; Donald W Northfelt; Debasish Tripathy; William C Wood; Cheryl Ewing; Richard Schwab; Julia Lyandres; Sarah E Davis; Gillian L Hirst; Ashish Sanil; Donald A Berry; Laura J Esserman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Priyanka Sharma; Sara López-Tarruella; José Angel García-Saenz; Qamar J Khan; Henry L Gómez; Aleix Prat; Fernando Moreno; Yolanda Jerez-Gilarranz; Agustí Barnadas; Antoni C Picornell; María Del Monte-Millán; Milagros González-Rivera; Tatiana Massarrah; Beatriz Pelaez-Lorenzo; María Isabel Palomero; Ricardo González Del Val; Javier Cortés; Hugo Fuentes-Rivera; Denisse Bretel Morales; Iván Márquez-Rodas; Charles M Perou; Carolyn Lehn; Yen Y Wang; Jennifer R Klemp; Joshua V Mammen; Jamie L Wagner; Amanda L Amin; Anne P O'Dea; Jaimie Heldstab; Roy A Jensen; Bruce F Kimler; Andrew K Godwin; Miguel Martín Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Julie A Schneider; Andrew C Miklos; James Onken; Yutao Gong; Anna Maria Calcagno; Gideon M Blumenthal; Richard Aragon; Richard Pazdur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Julie A Schneider; Andrew C Miklos; James Onken; Yutao Gong; Anna Maria Calcagno; Gideon M Blumenthal; Richard Aragon; Richard Pazdur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26