Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32618068›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

Validation of Residual Proliferative Cancer Burden as a Predictor of Long-Term Outcome Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer.

Federica Miglietta, Maria Vittoria Dieci, Vassilena Tsvetkova, Gaia Griguolo, Grazia Vernaci, Alice Menichetti, Giovanni Faggioni, Tommaso Giarratano, Eleonora Mioranza, Elisa Genovesi and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Federica MigliettaDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6203-874X
Maria Vittoria DieciDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Vassilena TsvetkovaDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Gaia GriguoloDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Grazia VernaciDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Alice MenichettiDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Giovanni FaggioniDivision of Oncology 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S, Padova, Italy.
Tommaso GiarratanoDivision of Oncology 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S, Padova, Italy.
Eleonora MioranzaDivision of Oncology 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S, Padova, Italy.
Elisa GenovesiDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Enrico CumerlatoDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Michele BottossoDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Tania SaibeneBreast Surgery Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S, Padova, Italy.
Silvia MichielettoBreast Surgery Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto I.R.C.C.S, Padova, Italy.
Marcello Lo MeleAnatomy and Histology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Padova, Italy.
Pierfranco ConteDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Valentina GuarneriDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Istituto Oncologico Veneto · ITUniversity of Padua · ITAzienda Ospedaliera di Padova · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integration of residual cancer burden (RCB) and post-treatment Ki67 as residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been proposed as a stronger predictor of long-term outcome in unselected patients with breast cancer (BC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), as compared with RCB. However, no specific analysis in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC is available so far. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cohort of 130 patients with HR+/HER2- BC who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 was included. Archival surgical specimens were evaluated for RCB. RPCB was calculated by combining RCB and Ki67 as previously described. Patients were categorized in four RCB and RPCB categories (pathological complete response and tertiles). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Overall change of χ

resultsRPCB was calculated for 85 patients. After a median follow up of 8.5 years, RCB was associated with OS (p = .048) but not with DFS (p = .152); RPCB was instead significantly associated with both DFS and OS (p = .034 and p < .001, respectively). In terms of OS, RPCB provided a significant amount of prognostic information beyond RCB (∆χ

conclusionThis is the first study evaluating RPCB in patients with HR+/HER2- BC treated with NACT. In this independent cohort, RPCB was a strong predictor of DFS and OS. The better performance of RPCB versus RCB was in part due to the ability of RPCB to discriminate a subgroup of patients with a particularly worse prognosis after NACT, who may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating novel adjuvant strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The present work validated residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) as a strong predictor of long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, results from the present study suggest RPCB as a promising tool to identify patients with HR+/HER2- BC who might potentially benefit from the inclusion in clinical trials evaluating novel or escalated postneoadjuvant treatment strategies because it allowed to discriminate a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis despite having received subsequent endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsChemotherapy, AdjuvantErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHormonesHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualPrognosisErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesHormonesBreast cancerKi67Neoadjuvant chemotherapyResidual cancer burdenResidual proliferative cancer burden

Identifiers

PMID32618068
PMCPMC7485331
OpenAlexW3039622435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.