Olga Kantor1,2, Alison Laws1,2, Ricardo G Pastorello1,2, Claire King1, Stephanie Wong3, Tanujit Dey4, Stuart Schnitt2,5, Tari A King1,2, Elizabeth A Mittendorf6,7. 1. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, McGill University Medical School, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. emittendorf@bwh.harvard.edu. 7. Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. emittendorf@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists for optimal staging following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We compared the performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathologic prognostic staging system, Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Index, and the Neo-Bioscore in breast cancer patients after NAC. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III breast cancer who received NAC at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2004 to 2014 were identified. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and model fits were compared by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using the c-statistic and DeLong's test. RESULTS: Overall, 802 patients with a median age of 48 years received NAC. Most patients presented with cT2 (n = 470, 58.6%) and cN1 (n = 422, 52.6%) disease. The subtype was estrogen receptor (ER)- and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative in 296 (36.9%) patients, HER2-positive in 261 (32.5%) patients, and triple-negative in 245 (30.5%) patients. Median follow-up was 79.5 months. There were 174 recurrences (30 local, 25 regional, 145 distant), with 676 (76.8%) patients alive at last follow-up. AJCC pathologic prognostic staging and RCB had better discrimination for estimated 7-year DFS and OS compared with the Neo-Bioscore. The ROC c-statistics for DFS model fit were similar for AJCC pathologic prognostic stage (0.72) and RCB (0.71, p = non-significant); both had improved model fit versus the Neo-Bioscore (0.65, p < 0.01). The c-statistics for OS were 0.74, 0.71, and 0.70 for AJCC pathologic prognostic stage, RCB, and Neo-Bioscore, respectively (p = non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: These results validate the ability of these staging systems to stratify survival outcomes in NAC patients, with best discrimination achieved using AJCC pathologic prognostic stage or RCB.
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists for optimal staging following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We compared the performance of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathologic prognostic staging system, Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Index, and the Neo-Bioscore in breast cancerpatients after NAC. METHODS:Patients with stage I-III breast cancer who received NAC at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2004 to 2014 were identified. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and model fits were compared by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using the c-statistic and DeLong's test. RESULTS: Overall, 802 patients with a median age of 48 years received NAC. Most patients presented with cT2 (n = 470, 58.6%) and cN1 (n = 422, 52.6%) disease. The subtype was estrogen receptor (ER)- and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative in 296 (36.9%) patients, HER2-positive in 261 (32.5%) patients, and triple-negative in 245 (30.5%) patients. Median follow-up was 79.5 months. There were 174 recurrences (30 local, 25 regional, 145 distant), with 676 (76.8%) patients alive at last follow-up. AJCC pathologic prognostic staging and RCB had better discrimination for estimated 7-year DFS and OS compared with the Neo-Bioscore. The ROC c-statistics for DFS model fit were similar for AJCC pathologic prognostic stage (0.72) and RCB (0.71, p = non-significant); both had improved model fit versus the Neo-Bioscore (0.65, p < 0.01). The c-statistics for OS were 0.74, 0.71, and 0.70 for AJCC pathologic prognostic stage, RCB, and Neo-Bioscore, respectively (p = non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: These results validate the ability of these staging systems to stratify survival outcomes in NACpatients, with best discrimination achieved using AJCC pathologic prognostic stage or RCB.
Authors: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Priya Rastogi; Stewart J Anderson; Harry D Bear; Charles E Geyer; Morton S Kahlenberg; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; James L Hoehn; Victor G Vogel; Shaker R Dakhil; Deimante Tamkus; Karen M King; Eduardo R Pajon; Mary Johanna Wright; Jean Robert; Soonmyung Paik; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Djhenne Dalmacy; J Madison Hyer; Adrian Diaz; Alizeh Abbas; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.344