Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Modern Pathology

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 913-920

  Peintinger, Florentia ^a,b   Sinn, Bruno ^c   Hatzis, Christos ^d   Albarracin, Constance ^c   Downs Kelly, Erinn ^e   Morkowski, Jerzy ^f   Gould, Rebekah ^c   Symmans, W Fraser ^c  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^b General Hospital of Leoben   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f MLD Pathology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; PACLITAXEL;

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR VOLUME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FEMALE; FLUOROURACIL; HUMANS; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PACLITAXEL; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84934438645     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.53     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 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.
2. Kuerer HM, Neuman LA, Smith TL et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:460-469.
3. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTneoBC pooled analysis. The Lancet 2014;384:164-172.
4. Provenzano E, Vallier AL, Champ R et al. A central review of histopathology reports after breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the neo-tango trial. Br J Cancer 2013;108:866-872.
5. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4414-4422.
6. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Residual Cancer Burden Calculator. http://www3. mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3, 2014.
7. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R et al. Long-term prognostic value of residual cancer burden (RCB) classification following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2013;73, S6-02.
8. Abrial C, Thivat E, Tacca O et al. Measurement of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3094.
9. Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T et al. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5983-5992.
10. Barnhart HX, Haber M, Song J. Overall concordance correlation coefficient for evaluating agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 2002;58:1020-1027.
11. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaVienna, AustriaURL http://www.R-project.org/2014.
12. Therneau T, A Package for Survival Analysis in S. R package version 2.37-7, URL http://CRAN.R-project. org/package = survival/2014.
13. Detailed Pathology Methods for Using Residual Cancer Burden http://www.mdanderson.org/education-andresearch/resources-for-professionals/clinical-tools-andresources/clinical-calculators/calculators-rcb-pathol ogy-protocol2.pdf MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
14. Boughey JC, Donohue JH, Jakub JW et al. Number of lymph nodes identified at axillary dissection: effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and other factors. Cancer 2010;116:3322-3329.
15. Gelber RD, Gelber S. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) and the Breast International Group (BIG): facilitating consensus by examining patterns of treatment effects. Breast 2009;18:S2-S8.
16. Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP et al. Estrogen-and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2473-2481.
17. Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3846-3852.
18. Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1897-1906.
19. Manucha V, Zhang X, Thomas RM. The satisfactory reproducibility of the Ki-67 index in breast carcinoma, and it's correlation with the recurrence score. Clin Cancer Investig J 2014;3:310-314.
20. Takeda K1, Kanao S, Okada T et al. Assessment of CAD-generated tumor volumes measured using MRI in breast cancers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2627-2631.