Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Abdel-Fatah, TM; Ball, G; Lee, AHS; Pinder, S; MacMilan, RD; Cornford, E; Moseley, PM; Silverman, R; Price, J; Latham, B; Palmer, D; Chan, A; Ellis, IO; Chan, SYT (2015)
Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research
Languages: English
Types: Article
Purpose: There is a need to identify more sensitive clinico-pathological criteria to assess the response to Neo-ACT and guide subsequent adjuvant-therapy. Experimental Design: We performed a clinico-pathological assessment of 427 patients who had completed Neo-ACT for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) with a median follow-up of 5-years. Patients were divided into a training set treated with anthracycline combination chemotherapy (AC, n=172); an internal validation set treated with AC and taxane (n=130); and an external validation set treated with AC with or without taxane (n=125). Results: A multivariate Cox regression model demonstrated the absence of fibrosis, presence of lympho-vascular invasion, and increasing number of lymph node metastases were significantly associated with short disease-free survival (DFS) and breast-cancer specific survival (BCSS, p<0.01), whilst reduction of tumour size was associated with DFS (p=0.022). Nottingham Clinico-Pathological Response Indexes (NPRIs) were calculated and four prognostic groups (NPRI-PGs) were identified. Patients in prognostic group 2 (NPRI-PG2) for DFS (n=63/172; 36.6%) and BCSS (66/172; 38.4%) have the same prognosis as those who achieved pCR (NPRI-PG1; 15%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves indicated that the NPRI outperformed the currently used prognostic factors and adding NPRI improved their performance as a predictor for both DFS (AUC=0.87) and BCSS (AUC= 0.88). Conclusions: The NPRI predicts DFS and BCSS, with a higher sensitivity than pCR. The NPRI can also improve the sensitivity and specificity of clinico-pathological response as a study end-point, for assessing response to Neo-ACT, and can serve as a valuable tool for the discovery of future predictive molecular markers.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JPA: Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97:188-194, 2005
    • 2. Thompson AM, Moulder-Thompson SL: Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 23:x231-x236, 2012
    • 3. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al: Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 25:4414-22, 2007
    • 4. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, et al: Preoperative Therapy in Invasive Breast Cancer: Pathologic Assessment and Systemic Therapy Issues in Operable Disease. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26:814-819, 2008
    • 5. Fan F: Evaluation and reporting of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. OPJ 3:58-63, 2009
    • 6. von Minckwitz 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30:1796-1804, 2012
    • 7. Schott AF, Hayes DF: Defining the Benefits of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30:1747-1749, 2012
    • 8. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC: Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 99:918-928, 2012
    • 9. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26:778-785, 2008
    • 10. Debled M, Mauriac L: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: are we barking up the right tree? Annals of Oncology 21:675-679, 2010
    • 11. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:118-45, 2007
    • 12. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, 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 Oncol Pract 6:195-7, 2010
    • 13. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al: Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System for Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20:3628-3636, 2002
    • 14. Harrell JF: Regression modelling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, Springer-Verlag 2001
    • 15. Jemal A, Ward E, Thun M: Recent trends in breast cancer incidence rates by age and tumour characteristics among U.S. women. Breast Cancer Research 9:R28, 2007
    • 16. Sahoo S, Lester SC: Pathology of Breast Carcinomas After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Overview With Recommendations on Specimen Processing and Reporting. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 133:633-642, 2009
    • 17. Nabholtz J-M, Riva A: Taxane/Anthracycline Combinations: Setting a New Standard in Breast Cancer? The Oncologist 6:5-12, 2001
    • 18. Kattan MW: Judging New Markers by Their Ability to Improve Predictive Accuracy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95:634-635, 2003
    • 19. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26:246-252, 2008
    • 20. Rodenhuis S, Mandjes IAM, Wesseling J, et al: A simple system for grading the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Annals of Oncology 21:481- 487, 2010
    • 27. Lobbes M, Prevos R, Smidt M: Response monitoring of breast cancer patientsreceiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy using breast MRI - a review of current knowledge. journal of Cancer Therapeutics and Research 1, 2012
    • 28. Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L, et al: Meta-analysis of agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumour size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 109:1528-1536, 2013
    • 29. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, et al: MRI Measurements of Breast Tumour Volume Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Recurrence-Free Survival. American Journal of Roentgenology 184:1774-1781, 2005
    • 30. Chen J-H, Su M-Y: Clinical Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Management of Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. BioMed Research International 2013:14, 2013
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article