Can residual proliferative cancer burden predict long-term outcomes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer?

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
Imen Zawati, Yousra Troujette, Olfa Adouni, Maroua Manai, Meriem Nouira, Karim Mekki, Mohamed Manai, Khaled Rahal, Amor Gamoudi
{"title":"Can residual proliferative cancer burden predict long-term outcomes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer?","authors":"Imen Zawati, Yousra Troujette, Olfa Adouni, Maroua Manai, Meriem Nouira, Karim Mekki, Mohamed Manai, Khaled Rahal, Amor Gamoudi","doi":"10.1016/j.pathol.2024.11.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been suggested as a strong predictor model of long-term outcomes in breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In our study, we aimed to compare the prognostic value of multiple post-NACT classifications for assessing residual disease. Archival surgical specimens of 97 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT were evaluated for residual cancer burden (RCB). The post-operative Ki-67 proliferation index was quantified using immunohistochemistry on post-treatment surgical excision specimens with residual disease. Then, we calculated the RPCB scores by combining the anatomical RCB index with the biological post-therapeutic Ki-67 using the Cox proportional hazard model for each parameter. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, RCBIII showed an unfavourable prognosis with worse relapse-free survival (RFS) (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 38%) than RCBI, which displayed a similarly good prognosis as pathological complete response (equal to RCB0) (estimated 5-year RFS rates of 80% and 100%, respectively) (p=0.012). The RCBII showed an intermediate prognosis (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 79%). A higher post-NACT Ki-67 (greater than cut-off 20%) had a negative impact on the overall survival and RFS (p<0.0001 for both) using the Kaplan-Meier method. In multivariate analysis, the histological residual tumour size, number of affected lymph nodes, and RCB index remained independent prognostic factors for RFS. In addition, RPCBIII showed the worst prognosis (with an estimated 5-year RFS rate of 38%) compared to RPCBI (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 83%) (p=0.039) by the Kaplan-Meier method. The area under the curve of the RCB index was 0.82 compared to 0.62 for the RPCB model in terms of RFS prediction. Our study highlighted the potential stratification of RCBII cases based on the RPCB classification. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to validate whether the RCPB adds value to residual disease assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19915,"journal":{"name":"Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2024.11.014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been suggested as a strong predictor model of long-term outcomes in breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In our study, we aimed to compare the prognostic value of multiple post-NACT classifications for assessing residual disease. Archival surgical specimens of 97 patients with primary breast cancer who underwent NACT were evaluated for residual cancer burden (RCB). The post-operative Ki-67 proliferation index was quantified using immunohistochemistry on post-treatment surgical excision specimens with residual disease. Then, we calculated the RPCB scores by combining the anatomical RCB index with the biological post-therapeutic Ki-67 using the Cox proportional hazard model for each parameter. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, RCBIII showed an unfavourable prognosis with worse relapse-free survival (RFS) (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 38%) than RCBI, which displayed a similarly good prognosis as pathological complete response (equal to RCB0) (estimated 5-year RFS rates of 80% and 100%, respectively) (p=0.012). The RCBII showed an intermediate prognosis (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 79%). A higher post-NACT Ki-67 (greater than cut-off 20%) had a negative impact on the overall survival and RFS (p<0.0001 for both) using the Kaplan-Meier method. In multivariate analysis, the histological residual tumour size, number of affected lymph nodes, and RCB index remained independent prognostic factors for RFS. In addition, RPCBIII showed the worst prognosis (with an estimated 5-year RFS rate of 38%) compared to RPCBI (estimated 5-year RFS rate of 83%) (p=0.039) by the Kaplan-Meier method. The area under the curve of the RCB index was 0.82 compared to 0.62 for the RPCB model in terms of RFS prediction. Our study highlighted the potential stratification of RCBII cases based on the RPCB classification. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to validate whether the RCPB adds value to residual disease assessment.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pathology
Pathology 医学-病理学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.20%
发文量
459
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Published by Elsevier from 2016 Pathology is the official journal of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). It is committed to publishing peer-reviewed, original articles related to the science of pathology in its broadest sense, including anatomical pathology, chemical pathology and biochemistry, cytopathology, experimental pathology, forensic pathology and morbid anatomy, genetics, haematology, immunology and immunopathology, microbiology and molecular pathology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信