Abstract GS5-01: Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A multi-center pooled analysis

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated independent validation of the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, a pooled subject-level analysis of multiple cohorts is needed to determine estimates of long-term prognosis for each class of RCB in each phenotypic subtype of breast cancer (BC) to better inform on patient outcomes. Also, a pooled subject-level analysis allows more detailed analyses of generalizability of the prognostic meaning of RCB assessments in a broader experience of practice settings. Method: Subject-level RCB results, with relevant clinical and pathologic stage, tumor subtype and grade, demographic, treatment and follow-up data from 11 institutes/trials are being collected for combined analysis. The association between the continuous RCB index and event-free survival (EFS), and distant recurrence free survival (DRFS) were assessed using mixed effect Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB coefficients to account for between-study heterogeneity. We will also allow for differences in baseline hazard across biological BC subtypes and, if needed, across studies as well. In addition to this stratified mixed effect model, a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, T-category, nodal status and grade was performed within each subtype. In addition, mixed effect Cox models will be employed to evaluate association between RCB index with EFS and DRFS within each HR/HER2 subtype. Kaplan Meier estimates of EFS and DRFS at 5 and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within subtype. Results: We analyzed subject-level data from 9 institutes/trials representing 4077 patients currently available from an anticipated final total of 4,800 patients (to be presented at the meeting). There were 950 EFS and 876 DRFS events during follow up (median 65 months, IQR: 70 months). RCB index (continuous) was independently prognostic within each subtype: HR+/HER2- (EFS HR (per unit increase in RCB index) =1.64, 95%CI 1.48-1.82; DRFS HR=1.68, 1.51-1.87), HR+/HER2+ (EFS HR=1.80, 1.57-2.05; DRFS HR=1.93, 1.67-2.24), HR-/HER2+ (EFS HR=2.15, 1.76-2.62; DRFS HR=2.10, 1.77-2.50), and HR-/HER2- (EFS HR=2.05, 1.89-2.22; DRFS HR=2.16, 1.90-2.46); and remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis. Table 1 contains the response rate and estimated EFS at 5 years and 10 years for each RCB class within each HR/HER2 phenotype (DRFS results were similar). Conclusions: Long-term prognosis after pCR was similarly excellent in all phenotypic subtypes. RCB index and classification was independently and strongly prognostic in all subtypes, and generalizable to multiple practice settings. Prognostic differences by RCB class occurred within 5 years in HR- BC, but extended to 10 years in HR+ BC. RCB-I had slightly worse EFS than pCR in HR- BC and HR+/HER2+ BC (after 5 years), but the same EFS as pCR in HR+/HER2- BC. Complete analysis of all subjects, including neoadjuvant treatments, will be presented at the meeting. PhenotypeOutcomepCRRCB-IRCB-IIRCB-IIIHR+/HER2-Frequency (%)11%10%52%27%(N=1467)5 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)93% (89-98)82% (79-85)70% (65-75)10 yr EFS (95% CI)84% (75-93)88% (82-95)71% (67-75)52% (46-58)HR+/HER2+Frequency (%)38%18%35%9%(N=762)5 yr EFS (95% CI)94% (91-97)93% (88-98)78% (73-84)49% (37-65)10 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)79% (70-90)65% (59-73)42% (29-60)HR-/HER2+Frequency (%)66%11%18%5%(N=550)5 yr EFS (95% CI)93% (90-96)88% (79-97)60% (50-71)45% (30-69)10 yr EFS (95% CI)90% (86-94)84% (74-95)56% (46-68)45% (30-69)HR-/HER2-Frequency (%)41%13%33%13%(N=1293)5 yr EFS (95% CI)92% (90-94)85% (79-91)68% (63-72)28% (21-36)10 yr EFS (95% CI)87% (82-91)80% (72-88)63% (58-68)24% (18-33) Citation Format: Christina Yau, Marieke van der Noordaa, Jane Wei, Marie Osdoit, Fabien Reyal, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Miguel Martin, Maria del Monte, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Rebekah Gould, Jelle Wesseling, Tessa Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Gabe Sonke, Stephen Edge, Stephen-John Sammut, Elena Provenzano, Jean Abraham, Peter Hall, Ashley Graham, Lorna Mackintosh, David Cameron, Alice Wang, Priyanka Sharma, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Mi-Ok Kim, Laura van ‘t Veer, Laura Esserman, W. Fraser Symmans. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A multi-center pooled analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS5-01.

Prognostic value of the Residual Cancer Burden index according to breast cancer subtype: Validation on a cohort of BC patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy

“…In our cohort, RCB index displayed a strong discriminative power in TNBC and HER2-positive BC but not in luminal BCs, and we identified a trend towards an interaction (P interaction = 0.07) between BC subtype and RCB class. However, a pooled meta-analysis of more than 5000 individual RCB data with long-term follow up was recently presented by Symmans and colleagues [25]. In this study, RCB was significantly associated with BC outcomes, even in the luminal BC subgroup.…”

Immune phenotype of tumor microenvironment predicts response to bevacizumab in neoadjuvant treatment of ER‐positive breast cancer

“…Patients with minimal residual disease (RCB class I) have an improved outcome compared to patients with more remaining tumor after treatment. In our study, we determined the RCB of the tumors using the criteria described 20,21,35 . The addition of bevacizumab resulted in improved response, most pronounced in the ER‐positive subset where more patients achieved a good response (RCB class 0 and I) and a decrease in the number of tumors with limited treatment response (RCB class III).…”

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Recent Progresses and Challenges

“…Despite the appealing concept of precision medicine for management of metastatic breast cancer, the implementation of such approaches in the neoadjuvant setting remains challenging. While TNBC patients with pCR/RCB-0 or RCB-1 have better survival, those with extensive residual disease (RCB-II or RCB-III) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) have poor prognoses [124][125][126]. The ARTEMIS (NCT 02276443) is a randomized phase II trial to determine whether precision neoadjuvant therapy (P-NAT) impacts the rates of pathologic response (RCB 0-I) while using a CLIA-certified chemosensitivity mRNA gene signature (GES) and subtyping of TNBC by IHC to select targeted therapy trials for chemotherapy-insensitive tumors [19][20][21].…”