Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Different Prognostic Implications of Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Treatment: Impact of Ki 67 and Site of Response

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) can be used as an independent prognostic factor in neoadjuvant trials. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of Ki 67 expression and site of response on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) across different molecular subtypes of breast cancer following NAC.

Methods

Records from 357 patients who received NAC from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze clinical and pathological factors that influence pCR and DFS.

Results

Mean follow-up time was 45 months (range 12–112). pCR was achieved in 82 patients (23 %). According to molecular subtypes, rates of pCR were significantly higher for patients with HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors (69.4 and 32.7 %, respectively; p < 0.001) compared with other molecular subtypes. pCR was a predictive factor of longer OS and DFS. The hazard ratio for DFS in patients with positive lymph nodes (ypN1) after NAC was 2.48 (95 % confidence interval 1.47–4.19). Multivariate analysis showed that molecular subtype, changes in Ki 67 expression, and axillary lymph node response were significantly predictors of OS and DFS.

Conclusions

pCR in the axilla and posttreatment changes in Ki 67 after NAC are associated with improved survival. Depending on axillary staging before NAC, detection of minimal residual disease—defined as the presence of isolated tumor cells in the SLN after NAC—may confer different prognosis. Further studies are needed to tailor treatments for patients with residual disease after NAC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;(30):96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bear HD. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(22):4165–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(8):2672–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(22):4224–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiezzi DG, Andrade JM, Marana HRC, Zola FE, Peria FM. Breast conserving surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for large primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(8):863–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL–CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3242–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shin H-C, Han W, Moon H-G, et al. Breast-conserving surgery after tumor downstaging by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is oncologically safe for stage III breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2582–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Corben AD, Abi-Raad R, Popa I, et al. Pathologic response and long-term follow-up in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison between classifications and their practical application. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(8):1074–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Minckwitz von G, Untch M, Blohmer J-U, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aebi S, Gelber S, Anderson SJ, et al. Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):156–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuerer HM, Sahin AA, Hunt KK, et al. Incidence and impact of documented eradication of breast cancer axillary lymph node metastases before surgery in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 1999;230(1):72–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):633–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rouzier R, Extra J-M, Klijanienko J, et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang GC, Zhang YF, Xu FP, et al. Axillary lymph node status, adjusted for pathologic complete response in breast and axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, predicts differential disease-free survival in breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(3):e180–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. von Minckwitz G, Schmitt WD, Loibl S, et al. Ki 67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(16):4521–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Montagna E, Bagnardi V, Viale G, et al. Changes in PgR and Ki67 in residual tumour and outcome of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):307–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Edge SB, Compton CC, Fritz AG, et al. American joint committee on cancer (AJCC) cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Chicago: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes–dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in breast cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(22):1656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK, et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the MD Anderson cancer center experience. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feldman LD, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Ames FC, Blumenschein GR. Pathological assessment of response to induction chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1986;46(5):2578–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones RL, Lakhani SR, Ring AE, Ashley S, Walsh G, Smith IE. Pathological complete response and residual DCIS following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(3):358–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2650–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Minckwitz von G, Untch M, Nüesch E, et al. Impact of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;125(1):145–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mougalian SS, Hernandez M, Xiudong L, et al. Outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologically confirmed axillary lymph node metastasis and pathologic complete response after primary systemic chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2015;30:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Straver ME, Rutgers EJT, Rodenhuis S, et al. The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(9):2411–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3351–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, et al. Ki67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12.155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(10):1504–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Matsubara N, Mukai H, Fujii S, Wada M. Different prognostic significance of Ki-67 change between pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various subtypes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;137:203–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yamazaki N, Wada N, Yamauchi C, Yoneyama K. High expression of post-treatment Ki-67 status is a risk factor for locoregional recurrence following breast- conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. EJSO. 2015;41:617–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1659–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dominici LS, Negron Gonzalez VM, Buzdar AU, et al. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(12):2884–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Boileau J-F, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):258–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hunt KK, Ballman KV, McCall LM, et al. Factors associated with local-regional recurrence after a negative sentinel node dissection: results of the ACOSOG Z0010 trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256(3):428–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1072–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15):2466–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonié Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS). Ann Oncol. 1999;10(1):47–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mittendorf EA, Buchholz TA, Tucker SL, et al. Impact of chemotherapy sequencing on local-regional failure risk in breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):173–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cebrecos I, Córdoba O, Deu J, Xercavins J, Rubio IT. Can we predict local recurrence in breast conserving surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? EJSO. 2010;36(6):528–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

None of the authors have financial relationship to disclosure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Surgical Oncology Unit, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Sebastian Diaz-Botero MD, Martin Espinosa-Bravo MD, PhD, Victor Rodrigues Gonçalves MD, Antonio Esgueva-Colmenarejo MD & Isabel T. Rubio MD, PhD

  2. Pathology Department, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Vicente Peg MD

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

    Jose Perez MD, PhD

  4. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Cortes MD, PhD

  5. Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain

    Jose Perez MD, PhD & Javier Cortes MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Sebastian Diaz-Botero MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Espinosa-Bravo MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor Rodrigues Gonçalves MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Esgueva-Colmenarejo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vicente Peg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jose Perez MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Javier Cortes MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Isabel T. Rubio MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel T. Rubio MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diaz-Botero, S., Espinosa-Bravo, M., Gonçalves, V.R. et al. Different Prognostic Implications of Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Treatment: Impact of Ki 67 and Site of Response. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3831–3837 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5339-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5339-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation