Breast cancer index predicts pathological complete response and eligibility for breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 2046-2052

  Mathieu, M C ^a   Mazouni, C ^a   Kesty, N C ^b   Zhang, Y ^b   Scott, V ^a   Passeron, J ^a   Arnedos, M ^a   Schnabel, C A ^b   Delaloge, S ^a   Erlander, M G ^b   Andre F ^a  

^a INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^b BioTheranostics Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast Cancer Index; Breast conserving surgery; Gene expression signature; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Pathological complete response

Indexed keywords

ANTHRACYCLINE; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; TAXANE DERIVATIVE;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CANCER INDEX; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

EID: 84864958509     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr550     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1940-1949.
2. Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham DL et al. Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1858-1869.
3. 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: 778-785.
4. Schwartz GF, Hortobagyi GN Proceedings of the consensus conference on neoadjuvant chemotherapy in carcinoma of the breast, April 26-28, 2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cancer 2004; 100: 2512-2532.
5. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JPNeoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 188-194.
6. Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW 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: 1037-1044.
7. Amat S, Abrial SC, Penault-Llorca F et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94: 255-263.
8. 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: 2672-2685.
9. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2600-2608.
10. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 814-819.
11. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Garbay JR et al. Development and validation of nomograms for predicting residual tumor size and the probability of successful conservative surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer 2006; 107: 1459-1466.
12. Sotiriou C, Pusztai LGene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 790-800.
13. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffinembedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7265-7277.
14. Chang JC, Makris A, Gutierrez MC et al. Gene expression patterns in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded core biopsies predict docetaxel chemosensitivity in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 108: 233-240.
15. Straver ME, Glas AM, Hannemann J et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 119: 551-558.
16. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S et al. A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 2601-2608.
17. Jerevall PL, Ma XJ, Li H et al. Prognostic utility of HOXB13: IL17BR and molecular grade index in early-stage breast cancer patients from the Stockholm trial. Br J Cancer 2011; 104: 1762-1769.
18. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DLComparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845.
19. Jerevall PL, Brommesson S, Strand C et al. Exploring the two-gene ratio in breast cancer-independent roles for HOXB13 and IL17BR in prediction of clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 107: 225-234.
20. Hatzis C, Pusztai L, Valero V et al. A genomic predictor of response and survival following taxane-anthracycline chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. JAMA 2011; 305: 1873-1881.
21. Frierson HF, Jr, Wolber RA, Berean KW et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 103: 195-198.
22. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 2005; 18: 1067-1078.
23. Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol 2006; 19: 195-207.