Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Standard Pathologic Features Can Be Used to Identify a Subset of Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2 Negative Patients Likely to Benefit from Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancers and in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is uncertain due to the low rates of pathologic complete response (pCR).

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine if pathologic features can identify subsets likely to benefit from NAC.

Methods

Patients with stage I–III ER+, HER2− breast cancer receiving NAC were retrospectively reviewed. Endpoints were downstaging to breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and nodal pCR after NAC. Patients were grouped by progesterone receptor (PR) status and grade/differentiation (high grade or poor [HP] vs. non-HP).

Results

From 2007 to 2016, 402 ER+/HER2− cancers in patients receiving NAC were identified. Median age was 50 years, 98% were clinical stage II–III, and 75% were cN+. Overall pCR rate was 5%; breast pCR in 7% and nodal pCR in 15% of cN+ patients (p < 0.0001). Patients with ILC initially ineligible for BCS (n = 56) were less likely to downstage than those with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC; n = 183, 16 vs. 48%, p ≤ 0.0001), with a similar trend in the axilla (p = 0.086). The rates of BCS eligibility after NAC were highest in PR−/HP patients (62%) and lowest in PR+/non-HP patients (29%) [p = 0.005]. In the axilla, nodal pCR among cN+ patients (n = 301) ranged from 0 to 35% (p < 0.0001) within these groups, and was most frequent in PR−/HP patients.

Conclusions

ER+/HER2− patients most likely to benefit from NAC are those with PR− and HP tumors. Patients with ILC are unlikely to downstage in the breast or axilla compared with IDC. The use of these criteria can assist in defining the initial treatment approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, van de Vijver M, Bogaerts J, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the EORTC trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(1):101–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94(10):1189–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260(4):608–14 (Discussion 14–6).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Local-regional control according to surrogate markers of breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3):R83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, Carey L, Davis SE, Buxton M, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL: CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3242–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW, Cristofanilli M, Buzdar AU, Valero V, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1037–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(18):3342–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Straver ME, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, Linn SC, Loo CE, Wesseling J, et al. The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(9):2411–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Loibl S, Volz C, Mau C, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, et al. Response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 1,051 patients with infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(1):153–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Petrelli F, Barni S. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ductal compared to lobular carcinoma of the breast: a meta-analysis of published trials including 1,764 lobular breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(2):227–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Truin W, Vugts G, Roumen RM, Maaskant-Braat AJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van der Heiden-van der Loo M, et al. Differences in response and surgical management with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular versus ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):51–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Delpech Y, Coutant C, Hsu L, Barranger E, Iwamoto T, Barcenas CH, et al. Clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(2):285–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lips EH, Mukhtar RA, Yau C, de Ronde JJ, Livasy C, Carey LA, et al. Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(1):35–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, Holloway CM, Gaboury L, Sideris L, 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):258–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, Fleige B, Hausschild M, Helms G, 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):609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, Van Zee KJ, Plitas G, Pilewskie M, et al. How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastases? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3467–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(15):1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lips EH, Mulder L, de Ronde JJ, Mandjes IA, Vincent A, Vrancken Peeters MT, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER+ HER2− breast cancer: response prediction based on immunohistochemical and molecular characteristics. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(3):827–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, Goncalves R, Sanati S, Creighton CJ, et al. Ki67 proliferation index as a tool for chemotherapy decisions during and after neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment of breast cancer: results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1031 Trial (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1061–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Li XB, Krishnamurti U, Bhattarai S, Klimov S, Reid MD, O’Regan R, et al. Biomarkers predicting pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145(6):871–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Criscitiello C, Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Wong S, Esposito A, Viale G, et al. Breast conservation following neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the modern era: are we losing the opportunity? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(12):1780–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. This study was supported by Judy Guitelman, Dan Epstein, and the Dan J. Epstein Family Foundation, and was presented in part in podium format at the Society of Surgical Oncology 2017 Annual Cancer Symposium, Seattle, WA, USA, 15–18 March 2017.

Disclosure

Oriana A. Petruolo, Melissa Pilewskie, Sujata Patil, Andrea V. Barrio, Michelle Stempel, Hannah Y. Wen, and Monica Morrow have no conflicts of interest to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Morrow MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petruolo, O.A., Pilewskie, M., Patil, S. et al. Standard Pathologic Features Can Be Used to Identify a Subset of Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2 Negative Patients Likely to Benefit from Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 24, 2556–2562 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5898-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5898-z

Keywords

Navigation