Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic significance of subtype and pathologic response in operable breast cancer; a pooled analysis of prospective neoadjuvant studies of JBCRG

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In the past decade, JBCRG has conducted three studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy which have examined sequential combination of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and docetaxel. The present study is a pooled analysis of these studies performed to determine the prognostic significance of pathologic complete response (pCR) and predictive variables for pCR.

Methods

A total of 353 patients were included. pCR was defined as the absence of invasive cancer or only a few remaining isolated cancer cells in the breast (quasi-pCR, QpCR).

Results

Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different among studies, and patients who achieved a QpCR had significantly better prognosis (DFS, p < 0.001; OS, p = 0.002). Patients with triple-negative (TN) tumors had worse prognosis than patients with the other subtypes (DFS, p = 0.03; OS, p = 0.10). A Cox proportional hazards model showed node-positive, TN, and QpCR were the significant predictors for DFS and OS among study, age, tumor size, nuclear grade, nodal status, subtype, clinical response, and pathologic response (DFS; node-positive, HR = 2.29, p = 0.001; TN, HR = 3.39, p < 0.001; QpCR, HR = 0.27, p < 0.001: OS; node-positive, HR = 3.05, p = 0.003; TN, HR = 4.92, p < 0.001; QpCR, HR = 0.12, p < 0.001). In a logistic regression analysis, subtype and clinical response before surgery were the significant predictive variables for QpCR (luminal/Her2-positive, odds ratio (OR) = 4.15, p = 0.002; Her2-positive, OR = 6.24, p < 0.001; TN, OR = 4.24, p < 0.001; clinical response before surgery, OR = 2.41, p = 0.019).

Conclusions

This study confirmed the prognostic significance of QpCR and nodal status and the predictive and prognostic significance of subtype in neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, Scholl S, Makris A, Valagussa P, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1940–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD, Buzdar A, McGale P, Bonnefoi H, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1927–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino J, Wolmark N, et al. Meta-analysis results from the collaborative trials in neoadjuvant breast cancer (CTNeoBC) S1–11. Cancer Res. 2012;72.

  5. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nuesch E, Loibl S, Kaufmann M, Kummel S, 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. 2011;125:145–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuroi K, Toi M, Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Akiyama F. Issues in the assessment of the pathologic effect of primary systemic therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:38–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Toi M, Nakamura S, Kuroi K, Iwata H, Ohno S, Masuda N, et al. Phase II study of preoperative sequential FEC and docetaxel predicts of pathological response and disease free survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110:531–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakamura S, Masuda S, Iwata H, Toi M, Kuroi K, Kurozumi M, et al. Phase II trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (FEC) followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 in primary operable breast cancer-JBCRG02-. Jpn J Breast Cancer. 2008;23:111–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Iwata H, Sato N, Masuda N, Nakamura S, Yamamoto N, Kuroi K, et al. Docetaxel followed by fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011;41:867–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, Komoike Y, Mukai H, Nakamura S, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer. 2008;15:5–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:297–306.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sinn HP, Schmid H, Junkermann H, Huober J, Leppien G, Kaufmann M, et al. Histologic regression of breast cancer after primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1994;54:552–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4414–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2019–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Houssami N, Macaskill P, von Minckwitz G, Marinovich ML, Mamounas E. Meta-analysis of the association of breast cancer subtype and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:3342–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, Manikhas A, Lluch A, Tjulandin S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375:377–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1275–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ohno S, Kuroi K, Toi M. An overview of the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group (JBCRG) activities. Breast Cancer. 2013 Mar 15. (Epub ahead of print).

  19. Kuroi K, Kashiwa K, Toi M, Nakamura S, Iwata H, Ohno S, et al. Japan Breast Cancer Research Group (JBCRG). Clin Oncol. 2010;6:360–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Manton DJ, Chaturvedi A, Hubbard A, Lind MJ, Lowry M, Maraveyas A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: early response prediction with quantitative MR imaging and spectroscopy. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:427–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5366–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The JBCRG-01 study was supported by the Osaka Cancer Research Foundation and the Advanced Clinical Research Organization; JBCRG-02 and JBCRG-03 studies were supported by the Advanced Clinical Research Organization. The authors gratefully thank the patients who participated in the JBCRG-01, JBCRG-02, and JBCRG-03 studies. The authors also thank Mrs Kiyomi Kashiwa and Mrs Aya Maruyama for their support and data management.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan

    Katsumasa Kuroi

  2. Department of Surgery (Breast Surgery), Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Masakazu Toi

  3. Department of Clinical Oncology, The Clinical Institute of NHO Kyusyu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan

    Shinji Ohno

  4. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Seigo Nakamura

  5. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Seigo Nakamura

  6. Department of Breast Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Aichi, Japan

    Hiroji Iwata

  7. Department of Surgery, Breast Oncology, NHO Osaka National Hospital, Osaka, Japan

    Norikazu Masuda

  8. Department of Breast Oncology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, Japan

    Nobuaki Sato

  9. Department of Basic Pathology, National Defense Medical College, Saitama, Japan

    Hitoshi Tsuda

  10. Department of Pathology, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan

    Masafumi Kurosumi

  11. Department of Pathology, The Cancer Institute of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan

    Futoshi Akiyama

  12. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8677, Japan

    Katsumasa Kuroi

Authors
  1. Katsumasa Kuroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masakazu Toi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shinji Ohno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seigo Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hiroji Iwata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Norikazu Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nobuaki Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hitoshi Tsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Masafumi Kurosumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Futoshi Akiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katsumasa Kuroi.

About this article

Cite this article

Kuroi, K., Toi, M., Ohno, S. et al. Prognostic significance of subtype and pathologic response in operable breast cancer; a pooled analysis of prospective neoadjuvant studies of JBCRG. Breast Cancer 22, 486–495 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0511-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0511-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation