Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 1441–1446 | Cite as

Pathological Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer

  • Patricia CortazarEmail author
  • Charles E. GeyerJr.
Breast Oncology



There has been recent interest in using pathological complete response (pCR) as a potential surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in the neoadjuvant treatment of high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.


We review the clinical trials that have contributed to our understanding of the association between pCR and long-term outcomes, describe the various definitions of pCR, describe patient populations in which pCR may predict long-term benefit, and discuss the implications of pCR on drug development and accelerated approval for neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer.


Varying definitions of pCR across clinical trials conducted in heterogeneous patient populations make understanding the association of pCR with long-term outcomes challenging. The US Food and Drug Administration established the Collaborative Trials in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer group to evaluate the potential use of pCR as a regulatory endpoint. The group demonstrated that pCR defined as no residual invasive cancer in the breast and axillary nodes with presence or absence of in situ cancer (ypT0/is ypN0 or ypT0 ypN0) provided a better association with improved outcomes compared to eradication of invasive tumor from the breast alone (ypT0/is).


Even though pCR was not validated as a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes, the promising data regarding the strong association of pCR with substantially improved outcomes in individual patients with more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer supported the opening of an accelerated approval pathway for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.


Overall Survival Trastuzumab Lapatinib Pertuzumab Locally Advanced Breast Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this publication.


  1. 1.
    Zucali R, Uslenghi C, Kenda R, Bonadonna G. Natural history and survival of inoperable breast cancer treated with radiotherapy and radiotherapy followed by radical mastectomy. Cancer. 1976;37(3):1422–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, et al. Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):93–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hortobagyi GN, Blumenschein GR, Spanos W, et al. Multimodal treatment of locoregionally advanced breast cancer. Cancer. 1983;51(5):763–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hortobagyi GN, Ames FC, Buzdar AU, et al. Management of stage III primary breast cancer with primary chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. Cancer. 1988;62(12):2507–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(2):460–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9304–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rouzier R, Extra JM, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher B, Redmond C, Brown A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with and without tamoxifen in the treatment of primary breast cancer: 5-year results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Trial. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(4):459–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonadonna G, Rossi A, Valagussa P. Adjuvant CMF chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: ten years later. Lancet. 1985;1(8435):976–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gunduz N, Fisher B, Saffer EA. Effect of surgical removal on the growth and kinetics of residual tumor. Cancer Res. 1979;39(10):3861–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher B, Gunduz N, Saffer EA. Influence of the interval between primary tumor removal and chemotherapy on kinetics and growth of metastases. Cancer Res. 1983;43(4):1488–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skipper HE. Kinetics of mammary tumor cell growth and implications for therapy. Cancer. 1971;28(6):1479–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, 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(13):2019–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):778–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(4):310–20.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive operable breast cancer (NSABP protocol B-41): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):1183–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):633–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Food and Drug Administration (2012). Guidance for Industry: Pathologic Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval. Available: Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
  26. 26.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nuesch 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. 2011;125(1):145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim MM, Allen P, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab predicts for improved survival in women with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(8):1999–2004.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peintinger F, Buzdar AU, Kuerer HM, et al. Hormone receptor status and pathologic response of HER2-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(12):2020–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, 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(9712):377–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, et al. Follow-up results of NOAH, a randomized phase III trial evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab (CT plus H) followed by adjuvant H versus CT alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl), abstract 503.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gianni L, Romieu GH, Lichinitser M, et al. AVEREL: a randomized phase III trial evaluating bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel and trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(14):1719–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Food and Drug Administration. Cortazar P. FDA Presentations for the September 12, 2013 Meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. Available: Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
  36. 36.
    Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA Medical Review. Available: Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
  37. 37.
    Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA. Label. Available: Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
  38. 38.
    Amiri-Kordestani L Wedam S, Zhang L, et al. First FDA approval of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: pertuzumab for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(21):5359–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swain SM, Kim SB, Cortes J, et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA study): overall survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(6):461–71.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    NIH. A Study of Pertuzumab in Addition to Chemotherapy and Herceptin (Trastuzumab) as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients With HER2-Positive Primary Breast Cancer. 2014; NCT01358877. Available at:, 2014.
  41. 41.
    Piccart-Gebhart M. First results from the phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06; NCCTG [Alliance] N063D) comparing one year of anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib alone (L), trastuzumab alone (T), their sequence (T → L), or their combination (T + L) in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). Abstract. Available at:, 2014.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.Massey Cancer CenterVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVAUSA

Personalised recommendations