Kristine R Broglio1, Melanie Quintana1, Margaret Foster2, Melissa Olinger1, Anna McGlothlin1, Scott M Berry1, Jean-François Boileau3, Christine Brezden-Masley4, Stephen Chia5, Susan Dent6, Karen Gelmon5, Alexander Paterson7, Daniel Rayson8, Donald A Berry9. 1. Berry Consultants, LLC, Austin, Texas. 2. Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, College Station. 3. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Division of Medical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 9. Berry Consultants, LLC, Austin, Texas9Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The expense and lengthy follow-up periods for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer make them impractical and even impossible to conduct. Randomized clinical trials of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer may help resolve this dilemma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of pathologic complete response (pCR) for neoadjuvant drug development in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 [also referred to as ERBB2])-positive breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), and Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts (Ovid) in December 2014. Searches combined terms for "breast cancer" and "neoadjuvant therapy," with no limit on publication date. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and RCTs were selected that met following criteria: stages I to III HER2-positive breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, and reports of both pCR and an event-free survival (EFS)-type outcome. The initial search identified 2614 publications, of which 38 studies met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened each study for inclusion and extracted the data. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Event-free survival and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) for pCR vs non-pCR. For RCTs, main outcome measures were treatment benefits in pCR and the corresponding treatment HRs for EFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies with EFS by pCR status representing 5768 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer were included in the patient-level analysis. Overall, the improvement in EFS for pCR vs non-pCR was substantial: HR, 0.37 (95% probability interval [PI], 0.32-0.43). This association was greater for patients with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR, 0.29 [95% PI, 0.24-0.36]) than hormone receptor-positive disease (HR, 0.52 [95% PI, 0.40-0.66]). In RCTs, the R2 correlations between odds ratios for pCR and HRs were 0.63 for EFS and 0.29 for OS. Based on absolute treatment improvements in pCR rate, predicted HRs for EFS for RCTs were concordant with observed HRs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with substantially longer times to recurrence and death. This relationship is maintained in RCTs. For any particular new therapy the relationship between pCR and survival may differ. Quantifying the importance of pCR is necessary for designing efficient clinical trials, which should adapt to the relationship between pCR and survival for the therapy under investigation.
IMPORTANCE: The expense and lengthy follow-up periods for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer make them impractical and even impossible to conduct. Randomized clinical trials of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer may help resolve this dilemma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of pathologic complete response (pCR) for neoadjuvant drug development in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 [also referred to as ERBB2])-positive breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), and Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts (Ovid) in December 2014. Searches combined terms for "breast cancer" and "neoadjuvant therapy," with no limit on publication date. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and RCTs were selected that met following criteria: stages I to III HER2-positive breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, and reports of both pCR and an event-free survival (EFS)-type outcome. The initial search identified 2614 publications, of which 38 studies met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened each study for inclusion and extracted the data. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Event-free survival and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) for pCR vs non-pCR. For RCTs, main outcome measures were treatment benefits in pCR and the corresponding treatment HRs for EFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies with EFS by pCR status representing 5768 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer were included in the patient-level analysis. Overall, the improvement in EFS for pCR vs non-pCR was substantial: HR, 0.37 (95% probability interval [PI], 0.32-0.43). This association was greater for patients with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR, 0.29 [95% PI, 0.24-0.36]) than hormone receptor-positive disease (HR, 0.52 [95% PI, 0.40-0.66]). In RCTs, the R2 correlations between odds ratios for pCR and HRs were 0.63 for EFS and 0.29 for OS. Based on absolute treatment improvements in pCR rate, predicted HRs for EFS for RCTs were concordant with observed HRs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with substantially longer times to recurrence and death. This relationship is maintained in RCTs. For any particular new therapy the relationship between pCR and survival may differ. Quantifying the importance of pCR is necessary for designing efficient clinical trials, which should adapt to the relationship between pCR and survival for the therapy under investigation.
Authors: Tessa G Steenbruggen; Mette S van Ramshorst; Marleen Kok; Sabine C Linn; Carolien H Smorenburg; Gabe S Sonke Journal: Drugs Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: I Osorio-Silla; A Gómez Valdazo; J I Sánchez Méndez; E York; M Díaz-Almirón; J Gómez Ramírez; S Rivas Fidalgo; J M Oliver; C M Álvarez; D Hardisson; M Díaz Miguel; F Lobo; J Díaz Domínguez Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Francesco Schettini; Tomás Pascual; Benedetta Conte; Nuria Chic; Fara Brasó-Maristany; Patricia Galván; Olga Martínez; Barbara Adamo; Maria Vidal; Montserrat Muñoz; Aranzazu Fernández-Martinez; Carla Rognoni; Gaia Griguolo; Valentina Guarneri; Pier Franco Conte; Mariavittoria Locci; Jan C Brase; Blanca Gonzalez-Farre; Patricia Villagrasa; Sabino De Placido; Rachel Schiff; Jamunarani Veeraraghavan; Mothaffar F Rimawi; C Kent Osborne; Sonia Pernas; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; Aleix Prat Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: N LeVasseur; C Stober; M Ibrahim; S Gertler; J Hilton; A Robinson; S McDiarmid; D Fergusson; S Mazzarello; B Hutton; A A Joy; M McInnes; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Nathalie LeVasseur; J Sun; L Gondara; R Diocee; C Speers; C Lohrisch; S Chia Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Laura M Spring; Geoffrey Fell; Andrea Arfe; Lorenzo Trippa; Aditya Bardia; Chandni Sharma; Rachel Greenup; Kerry L Reynolds; Barbara L Smith; Brian Alexander; Beverly Moy; Steven J Isakoff; Giovanni Parmigiani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531