Association of Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer With Long-Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The expense and lengthy follow-up periods for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer make them impractical and even impossible to conduct. Randomized clinical trials of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer may help resolve this dilemma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of pathologic complete response (pCR) for neoadjuvant drug development in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 [also referred to as ERBB2])-positive breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), and Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts (Ovid) in December 2014. Searches combined terms for "breast cancer" and "neoadjuvant therapy," with no limit on publication date. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and RCTs were selected that met following criteria: stages I to III HER2-positive breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, and reports of both pCR and an event-free survival (EFS)-type outcome. The initial search identified 2614 publications, of which 38 studies met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened each study for inclusion and extracted the data. Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Event-free survival and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) for pCR vs non-pCR. For RCTs, main outcome measures were treatment benefits in pCR and the corresponding treatment HRs for EFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies with EFS by pCR status representing 5768 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer were included in the patient-level analysis. Overall, the improvement in EFS for pCR vs non-pCR was substantial: HR, 0.37 (95% probability interval [PI], 0.32-0.43). This association was greater for patients with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR, 0.29 [95% PI, 0.24-0.36]) than hormone receptor-positive disease (HR, 0.52 [95% PI, 0.40-0.66]). In RCTs, the R2 correlations between odds ratios for pCR and HRs were 0.63 for EFS and 0.29 for OS. Based on absolute treatment improvements in pCR rate, predicted HRs for EFS for RCTs were concordant with observed HRs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with substantially longer times to recurrence and death. This relationship is maintained in RCTs. For any particular new therapy the relationship between pCR and survival may differ. Quantifying the importance of pCR is necessary for designing efficient clinical trials, which should adapt to the relationship between pCR and survival for the therapy under investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".