Using Probability for Pathological Complete Response (pCR) as a Decision Support Marker for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2 Negative Breast Cancer Patients – a Survey Among Physicians

Abstract Background In women with early breast cancer, a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is reported to be associated with an improvement of the survival. The aim of this survey among physicians was to investigate whether the probability of achieving pCR in patients with a hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease encourages physicians to recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods The study was conducted via an online survey that was sent to 493 physicians, who were either known as members of national guideline committees, heads of breast cancer centers, being high recruiters in clinical trials or leading a private practice. Participants were asked about a specific case that should resemble patients for whom it is unclear, whether they should be treated with chemotherapy. Results 113 (24.5%) physicians participated at the survey, out of which 96.5% had a work experience of more than 10 years and 94.7% were board certified in their specialty. A total of 84.1% would consider pCR for a decision concerning neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With regard to the pCR probability, 2.7 and 10.6% of the participants demanded at least a pCR rate of 5 and 10%, respectively, while 25.7% were satisfied with 20% probability, and another 25.7% with a pCR rate of 30%. Conclusions The vast majority of the long-term experienced physicians would embrace the implementation of a further method such as the prediction of pCR probability in clinical routine to support decision making regarding the necessity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The cut-off of around 30% pCR probability seems to be a realizable rate to distinguish patient groups.

[1]  Virginia G Kaklamani,et al.  Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21‐Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  T. Hyslop,et al.  The impact of chemotherapy sequence on survival in node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma. , 2018 .

[3]  Tanja Fehm,et al.  BRCA1/2 Mutations and Bevacizumab in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer: Response and Prognosis Results in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer From the GeparQuinto Study. , 2018, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  M. Bani,et al.  BRCA mutations and their influence on pathological complete response and prognosis in a clinical cohort of neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer patients , 2018, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  M. Lux,et al.  Update Breast Cancer 2018 (Part 1) – Primary Breast Cancer and Biomarkers , 2018, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[6]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of the Performance of 6 Prognostic Signatures for Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer , 2018, JAMA oncology.

[7]  P. Fasching,et al.  Abstract GS3-05: Survival analysis of the prospectively randomized phase III GeparSepto trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly nab-paclitaxel with solvent-based paclitaxel followed by anthracycline/cyclophosphamide for patients with early breast cancer – GBG69 , 2018 .

[8]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[9]  M. Lux,et al.  Update Breast Cancer 2017 – Implementation of Novel Therapies , 2017, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[10]  P. Fasching,et al.  Germline Mutation Status, Pathological Complete Response, and Disease-Free Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the GeparSixto Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, JAMA oncology.

[11]  P. Fasching,et al.  Initial Treatment of Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Evidence, Controversies, Consensus: Spectrum of Opinion of German Specialists at the 15th International St. Gallen Breast Cancer Conference (Vienna 2017). , 2017, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[12]  M. Rezai,et al.  Factors Influencing Decision-Making for or against Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Postmenopausal Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Patients in the EvAluate-TM Study. , 2016, Breast care.

[13]  L. V. van't Veer,et al.  70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of EndoPredict and EPclin With Oncotype DX Recurrence Score for Prediction of Risk of Distant Recurrence After Endocrine Therapy , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  M. Papa,et al.  Neo-adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers and non-carriers , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  Virginia G Kaklamani,et al.  Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  C. Geyer,et al.  Pathological Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[18]  Gideon Blumenthal,et al.  Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis , 2014, The Lancet.

[19]  Tae Hoon Lee,et al.  Ki-67 as a Predictor of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients , 2014, Journal of breast cancer.

[20]  S. Rodenhuis,et al.  Breast cancer subtyping by immunohistochemistry and histological grade outperforms breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[21]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  M. Bani,et al.  Shared decision-making in metastatic breast cancer: discrepancy between the expected prolongation of life and treatment efficacy between patients and physicians, and influencing factors , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  P. Fasching,et al.  Biomarkers in Breast Cancer - An Update. , 2012, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[24]  M. Bani,et al.  Shared decision-making in breast cancer: discrepancy between the treatment efficacy required by patients and by physicians , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[25]  S. Cross,et al.  PREDICT Plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2 , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[26]  P. Fasching,et al.  Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Peter A Fasching,et al.  Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment , 2011, BMC Cancer.

[28]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  P. Fasching,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. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  M. Hammond,et al.  Clinical Notice for American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations on ER/PgR and HER2 testing in breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  C. Denkert,et al.  Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline–taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[32]  R. Gelber,et al.  Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009 , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[33]  R. Gelber,et al.  Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[34]  R. Gelber,et al.  Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  P. Ravdin,et al.  Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[36]  Guidance for Industry Pathological Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer : Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval , 2014 .

[37]  I. Zuna,et al.  In vivo chemosensitivity-adapted preoperative chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the GEPARTRIO pilot study. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.