The Neo-Bioscore Update for Staging Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Incorporation of Prognostic Biologic Factors Into Staging After Treatment | Breast Cancer | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.129.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Bear  HD, Anderson  S, Brown  A,  et al; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27.  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):4165-4174.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Boileau  JF, 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):258-264.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Boughey  JC, Suman  VJ, Mittendorf  EA,  et al; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology.  Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial.  JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455-1461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Fisher  B, Brown  A, Mamounas  E,  et al.  Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18.  J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(7):2483-2493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
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):2672-2685.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Hunt  KK, Yi  M, Mittendorf  EA,  et al.  Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients.  Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):558-566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Kuehn  T, Bauerfeind  I, Fehm  T,  et al.  Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609-618.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Mauri  D, Pavlidis  N, Ioannidis  JP.  Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(3):188-194.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Mieog  JS, van der Hage  JA, van de Velde  CJ.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer.  Br J Surg. 2007;94(10):1189-1200.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Xing  Y, Foy  M, Cox  DD, Kuerer  HM, Hunt  KK, Cormier  JN.  Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.  Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):539-546.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
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):164-172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Carey  LA, Metzger  R, Dees  EC,  et al.  American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(15):1137-1142.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Jones  RL, Salter  J, A’Hern  R,  et al.  Relationship between oestrogen receptor status and proliferation in predicting response and long-term outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(2):315-323.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Sheri  A, Smith  IE, Johnston  SR,  et al.  Residual proliferative cancer burden to predict long-term outcome following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  Ann Oncol. 2015;26(1):75-80.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
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):4414-4422.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Jeruss  JS, Mittendorf  EA, Tucker  SL,  et al.  Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):246-252.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Marmé  F, Aigner  J, Lorenzo Bermejo  J,  et al.  Neoadjuvant epirubicin, gemcitabine and docetaxel for primary breast cancer: long-term survival data and major prognostic factors based on two consecutive neoadjuvant phase I/II trials.  Int J Cancer. 2013;133(4):1006-1015.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Mittendorf  EA, Jeruss  JS, Tucker  SL,  et al.  Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15):1956-1962.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Buzdar  AU, Ibrahim  NK, Francis  D,  et al.  Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3676-3685.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
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):377-384.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Mittendorf  EA, Wu  Y, Scaltriti  M,  et al.  Loss of HER2 amplification following trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant systemic therapy and survival outcomes.  Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(23):7381-7388.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
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):3351-3357.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Untch  M, Rezai  M, Loibl  S,  et al.  Neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the GeparQuattro study.  J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2024-2031.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Hammond  ME, Hayes  DF, Dowsett  M,  et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):2784-2795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Berruti  A, Amoroso  V, Gallo  F,  et al.  Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-regression of 29 randomized prospective studies.  J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(34):3883-3891.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
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):1275-1281.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Yi  M, Mittendorf  EA, Cormier  JN,  et al.  Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.  J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(35):4654-4661.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
July 2016

The Neo-Bioscore Update for Staging Breast Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Incorporation of Prognostic Biologic Factors Into Staging After Treatment

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 2Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 3Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 4Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 5Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
  • 6Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):929-936. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6478
Abstract

Importance  We previously described and validated a breast cancer staging system (CPS+EG, clinical-pathologic scoring system incorporating estrogen receptor–negative disease and nuclear grade 3 tumor pathology) for assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pretreatment clinical stage, posttreatment pathologic stage, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and grade. Development of the CPS+EG staging system predated routine administration of trastuzumab in patients with ERBB2-positive disease (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu).

Objective  To validate the CPS+EG staging system using the new definition of ER positivity (≥1%) and to develop an updated staging system (Neo-Bioscore) that incorporates ERBB2 status into the previously developed CPS+EG.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective review of data collected prospectively from January 2005 through December 2012 on patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Main Outcomes and Measure  Prognostic scores were computed using 2 versions of the CPS+EG staging system, one with ER considered positive if it measured 10% or higher, the other with ER considered positive if it measured 1% or higher. Fits of the Cox proportional hazards model for the 2 sets of prognostic scores were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Status of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement in fit.

Results  A total of 2377 patients were included; all were women (median age, 50 years [range, 21-87 years]); ER status was less than 1% in 28.9%, 1% to 9% in 8.3%, and 10% or higher in 62.8%; 591 patients were ERBB2 positive. Median follow-up was 4.2 years (range, 0.5-11.7 years). Five-year disease-specific survival was 89% (95% CI, 87%-90%). Using 1% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, 5-year disease-specific survival estimates determined using the CPS+EG stage ranged from 52% to 98%, thereby validating our previous finding that the CPS+EG score facilitates more refined categorization into prognostic subgroups than clinical or final pathologic stage alone. The AIC value for this model was 3333.06, while for a model using 10% or higher as the cutoff for ER positivity, it was 3333.38, indicating that the model fits were nearly identical. The improvement in fit of the model when ERBB2 status was added was highly significant, with 5-year disease-specific survival estimates ranging from 48% to 99% (P < .001). Incorporating ERBB2 into the staging system defined the Neo-Bioscore, which provided improved stratification of patients with respect to prognosis.

Conclusions and Relevance  The Neo-Bioscore improves our previously validated staging system and allows its application in ERBB2-positive patients. We recommend that treatment response and biologic markers be incorporated into the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.

×