Abstract P5-06-02: Pathologic complete response (pCR) and prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy of HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The achievement of pCR (breast and axilla) is strongly prognostic for event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in EBC (Cortazar 2014), and modulation of therapy improves long-term outcomes for patients with HER2-positive disease not achieving pCR (Von Minckwitz 2019). We sought to investigate prognostic factors for EFS and OS among patients with and without pCR following neoadjuvant systemic treatment consisting of chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Methods: We used individual data from 3,710 patients randomized in 11 neoadjuvant trials for HER2-positive EBC with N≥100 patients enrolled, available data for pCR, EFS, and OS, and follow-up ≥3 years. We assessed baseline clinical tumor size (cT) and clinical nodal status (cN) as prognostic factors using stratified (by trial and treatment) Cox models separately for hormone-receptor (HR)-positive vs. HR-negative disease, and for patients who achieved pCR (pCR+; ypT0/is, ypN0) vs. patients who did not achieve pCR (pCR-). Results: The median follow-up overall was 61.2 months. The table shows hazard ratios and 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS (5yr OS) according to HR and pCR. Comparable results were observed for EFS. Both cT (1-2 vs. 3-4) and cN (cN- vs. cN+) were independent prognostic factors for OS in most subsets, including in pCR+ patients. Conclusions: These results confirm that patients achieving pCR have far better long-term outcomes than patients who do not, and that traditional poor prognostic features namely tumour size and nodal status remain important even after a pCR, with no clear evidence that the relative impact of unfavourable (cT3-4 or cN+) features is different in patients who achieve a pCR than in those who did not. Key words: neo-adjuvant therapy, HER2-targeted therapy, pathological complete response, prognostic factors, overall survival Funding: German Breast Group HR pCRBaseline cT/cN DeathsPatients5yr OS (%)Hazard ratio* [95% CI]HR+ pCR+cT1-2/cN-521298.6%1.0 (reference)(N= 637)cT3-4/cN-46592.9%0.49 [0.21-1.14]cT1-2/cN+720095.1%0.82 [0.34-1.99]cT3-4/cN+1016094.0%0.40 [0.13-1.25]HR+ pCR-cT1-2/cN-1737796.3%1.0 (reference)(N=1399)cT3-4/cN-2514381.8%0.51 [0.36-0.73]cT1-2/cN+4844888.9%0.71 [0.49-1.03]cT3-4/cN+6443184.9%0.36 [0.23-0.58]HR- pCR+cT1-2/cN-319698.1%1.0 (reference)(N=860)cT3-4/cN-89090.4%0.56 [0.32-0.98]cT1-2/cN+1928092.4%0.49 [0.24-0.98]cT3-4/cN+3029489.5%0.27 [0.12-0.64]HR- pCR-cT1-2/cN-2114083.2%1.0 (reference)(N=814)cT3-4/cN-207871.4%0.46 [0.34-0.64]cT1-2/cN+4225181.6%0.76 [0.53-1.09]cT3-4/cN+11634561.9%0.35 [0.22-0.56]*Hazard ratio cT1-2/cN- vs. higher risk cohorts Citation Format: Sibylle Loibl, Michael Untch, Marc Buyse, André Robidoux, Luca Gianni, Andreas Schneeweiss, Pierfranco Conte, Martine Piccart, Hervé Bonnefoi, Christian Jackisch, Valentina Nekljudova, Joseph Costantino, Pinuccia Valagussa, Colin Neate, Richard Gelber, Coralie Poncet, Pierre Squifflet, Everardo Saad, Dominik Heinzmann, Carsten Denkert, Charles E Geyer, Javier Cortes, Valentina Guarneri, Evandro de Azambuja, David Cameron, Gustavo Ismael, Gunter von Minckwitz, Norman Wolmark, Patricia Cortazar. Pathologic complete response (pCR) and prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy of HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-06-02.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".