Elizabeth A Mittendorf1, Jose Vila1, Susan L Tucker2, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor3, Benjamin D Smith4, W Fraser Symmans5, Aysegul A Sahin5, Gabriel N Hortobagyi6, Kelly K Hunt1. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 3. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston4Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 5. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 6. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: We previously described and validated a breast cancer staging system (CPS+EG, clinical-pathologic scoring system incorporating estrogen receptor-negative disease and nuclear grade 3 tumor pathology) for assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pretreatment clinical stage, posttreatment pathologic stage, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and grade. Development of the CPS+EG staging system predated routine administration of trastuzumab in patients with ERBB2-positive disease (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu). OBJECTIVE: To validate the CPS+EG staging system using the new definition of ER positivity (≥1%) and to develop an updated staging system (Neo-Bioscore) that incorporates ERBB2 status into the previously developed CPS+EG. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of data collected prospectively from January 2005 through December 2012 on patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE: Prognostic scores were computed using 2 versions of the CPS+EG staging system, one with ER considered positive if it measured 10% or higher, the other with ER considered positive if it measured 1% or higher. Fits of the Cox proportional hazards model for the 2 sets of prognostic scores were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Status of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement in fit. RESULTS: A total of 2377 patients were included; all were women (median age, 50 years [range, 21-87 years]); ER status was less than 1% in 28.9%, 1% to 9% in 8.3%, and 10% or higher in 62.8%; 591 patients were ERBB2 positive. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (range, 0.5-11.7 years). Five-year disease-specific survival was 89% (95% CI, 87%-90%). Using 1% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, 5-year disease-specific survival estimates determined using the CPS+EG stage ranged from 52% to 98%, thereby validating our previous finding that the CPS+EG score facilitates more refined categorization into prognostic subgroups than clinical or final pathologic stage alone. The AIC value for this model was 3333.06, while for a model using 10% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, it was 3333.38, indicating that the model fits were nearly identical. The improvement in fit of the model when ERBB2 status was added was highly significant, with 5-year disease-specific survival estimates ranging from 48% to 99% (P < .001). Incorporating ERBB2 into the staging system defined the Neo-Bioscore, which provided improved stratification of patients with respect to prognosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Neo-Bioscore improves our previously validated staging system and allows its application in ERBB2-positive patients. We recommend that treatment response and biologic markers be incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.
IMPORTANCE: We previously described and validated a breast cancer staging system (CPS+EG, clinical-pathologic scoring system incorporating estrogen receptor-negative disease and nuclear grade 3 tumor pathology) for assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pretreatment clinical stage, posttreatment pathologic stage, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and grade. Development of the CPS+EG staging system predated routine administration of trastuzumab in patients with ERBB2-positive disease (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu). OBJECTIVE: To validate the CPS+EG staging system using the new definition of ER positivity (≥1%) and to develop an updated staging system (Neo-Bioscore) that incorporates ERBB2 status into the previously developed CPS+EG. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of data collected prospectively from January 2005 through December 2012 on patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE: Prognostic scores were computed using 2 versions of the CPS+EG staging system, one with ER considered positive if it measured 10% or higher, the other with ER considered positive if it measured 1% or higher. Fits of the Cox proportional hazards model for the 2 sets of prognostic scores were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Status of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement in fit. RESULTS: A total of 2377 patients were included; all were women (median age, 50 years [range, 21-87 years]); ER status was less than 1% in 28.9%, 1% to 9% in 8.3%, and 10% or higher in 62.8%; 591 patients were ERBB2 positive. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (range, 0.5-11.7 years). Five-year disease-specific survival was 89% (95% CI, 87%-90%). Using 1% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, 5-year disease-specific survival estimates determined using the CPS+EG stage ranged from 52% to 98%, thereby validating our previous finding that the CPS+EG score facilitates more refined categorization into prognostic subgroups than clinical or final pathologic stage alone. The AIC value for this model was 3333.06, while for a model using 10% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, it was 3333.38, indicating that the model fits were nearly identical. The improvement in fit of the model when ERBB2 status was added was highly significant, with 5-year disease-specific survival estimates ranging from 48% to 99% (P < .001). Incorporating ERBB2 into the staging system defined the Neo-Bioscore, which provided improved stratification of patients with respect to prognosis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Neo-Bioscore improves our previously validated staging system and allows its application in ERBB2-positive patients. We recommend that treatment response and biologic markers be incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.
Authors: Lisa A Carey; Richard Metzger; E Claire Dees; Frances Collichio; Carolyn I Sartor; David W Ollila; Nancy Klauber-DeMore; Jan Halle; Lynda Sawyer; Dominic T Moore; Mark L Graham Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Yun Wu; Maurizio Scaltriti; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kelly K Hunt; Shaheenah Dawood; Francisco J Esteva; Aman U Buzdar; Huiqin Chen; Sameena Eksambi; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jose Baselga; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M M Kim; P Allen; A M Gonzalez-Angulo; W A Woodward; F Meric-Bernstam; A U Buzdar; K K Hunt; H M Kuerer; J K Litton; G N Hortobagyi; T A Buchholz; E A Mittendorf Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Rashmi K Murthy; Juhee Song; Akshara S Raghavendra; Yisheng Li; Limin Hsu; Kenneth R Hess; Carlos H Barcenas; Vicente Valero; Robert W Carlson; Debu Tripathy; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-03-25
Authors: David Krug; René Baumann; Wilfried Budach; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Thomas Hehr; Marc D Piroth; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Frederik Wenz; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 3.621
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: Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Christina A Clarke; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Kelly K Hunt; Sharon H Giordano Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-06-07
Authors: Blake A Spindler; John R Bergquist; Cornelius A Thiels; Elizabeth B Habermann; Scott R Kelley; David W Larson; Kellie L Mathis Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T J Stankowski-Drengler; J R Schumacher; B Hanlon; D Livingston-Rosanoff; K Van de Walle; C C Greenberg; L G Wilke; H B Neuman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Julia Foldi; Mariya Rozenblit; Tristen S Park; Christin A Knowlton; Mehra Golshan; Meena Moran; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2021-07-02