Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34902335›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2022

Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients.

Christina Yau, Marie Osdoit, Marieke van der Noordaa, Sonal Shad, Jane Wei, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Laé, Fabien Reyal, Gabe S Sonke and 38 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 300 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
300citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
23.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT01560663 unknown statusnot on this map

Predictors of Response to Neoadjuvant Docetaxel-Carboplatin Chemotherapy for Patients With Stage II and III Triple Negative Breast Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorMiguel Martín JiménezRan2012 to 2023Enrolled415ConditionsBreast Cancer, Breast Cancer Stage II-IIIArmsDocetaxel- Carboplatin
NCT07220135 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Trial of Neoadjuvant THP vs TCHP for HER2-amplified/Positive Breast Cancer (NeoTHERa)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterRan2025 to 2031Enrolled100ConditionsBreast CancerArmsCarboplatin, Docetaxel, Trastuzumab (or biosimilar), Pertuzumab (or biosimilar)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

300 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 406 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes as a Predictor of Adjuvant Avelumab Efficacy in Patients with High-risk Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Neoadjuvant Abemaciclib plus Letrozole Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with HR+/HER2- Highly Proliferative Breast Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

240 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

48 authors at 14 institutions in 5 countries.

Christina YauDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: HoiSze.Yau@ucsf.edu.
Marie OsdoitDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Surgery, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Marieke van der NoordaaDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sonal ShadDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jane WeiDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Diane de CrozeDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Anne-Sophie HamyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Marick LaéDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institut Curie, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Université de Rouen Normandie, Rouen, France.
Fabien ReyalDepartment of Surgery, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Gabe S SonkeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tessa G SteenbruggenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maartje van SeijenDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jelle WesselingDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Miguel MartínDepartment of Medical Oncology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Maria Del Monte-MillánDepartment of Medical Oncology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Sara López-TarruellaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
I-SPY 2 Trial Consortium
Judy C BougheyDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Matthew P GoetzDepartment of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Tanya HoskinDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Rebekah GouldDepartment of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Vicente ValeroDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Stephen B EdgeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Jean E AbrahamDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
John M S BartlettDiagnostic Development Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Canada; Deanery of Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences, Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Edinburgh, UK; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carlos CaldasDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Janet DunnWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Helena EarlDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Larry HaywardDepartment of Oncology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Louise HillerWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Elena ProvenzanoDepartment of Histopathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen-John SammutDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jeremy S ThomasDepartment of Pathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
David CameronDepartment of Oncology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Ashley GrahamDepartment of Pathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Peter HallDepartment of Oncology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Lorna MackintoshDepartment of Pathology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Fang FanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Andrew K GodwinDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Kelsey SchwensenDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Priyanka SharmaDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Angela M DeMicheleDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kimberly ColeDepartment of Pathology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Lajos PusztaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Mi-Ok KimDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Laura J van 't VeerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Laura J EssermanDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
W Fraser SymmansDepartment of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USWestern General Hospital · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESInstitut Curie · FRMayo Clinic in Arizona · USYale University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Warwick · GBMayo Clinic in Florida · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity Enders · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
The Role of CHFR in Tumorigenesis and Paclitaxel-Sensitivity in Breast CancerP50CA116201 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI PETER C LUCAS · 2005 to 2026
$49.9M
The I SPY 2.2 TRIAL: Evolving to Imaging and Molecular Biomarker Response Directed Adaptive Sequential Treatment to Optimize Breast Cancer OutcomesP01CA210961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Nola M. Hylton-Watson · 2017 to 2026
$22.9M
Using Integrated Omics to Identify Dysfunctional Genetic Mechanisms Influencing Schizophrenia and Sleep DisturbancesP20GM130423 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ANDREW K. GODWIN · 2019 to 2026
$21.5M
Cancer Research UK 16942Cancer Research UK 21491Cancer Research UK 29567NCI NIH HHS P01 CA210961NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA116201NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM130423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have independently validated the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used results from several independent cohorts in a pooled patient-level analysis to evaluate the relationship of RCB with long-term prognosis across different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer, to assess generalisability in a broad range of practice settings.

methodsIn this pooled analysis, 12 institutes and trials in Europe and the USA were identified by personal communications with site investigators. We obtained participant-level RCB results, and data on clinical and pathological stage, tumour subtype and grade, and treatment and follow-up in November, 2019, from patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We assessed the association between the continuous RCB score and the primary study outcome, event-free survival, using mixed-effects Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneity, and stratification to account for differences in baseline hazard across cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status and HER2 status. The association was further evaluated within each breast cancer subtype in multivariable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment clinical T category, nodal status, and tumour grade. Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival at 3, 5, and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within each subtype.

findingsWe analysed participant-level data from 5161 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Sept 12, 1994, and Feb 11, 2019. Median age was 49 years (IQR 20-80). 1164 event-free survival events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up 56 months [IQR 0-186]). RCB score was prognostic within each breast cancer subtype, with higher RCB score significantly associated with worse event-free survival. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) associated with one unit increase in RCB ranged from 1·55 (95% CI 1·41-1·71) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients to 2·16 (1·79-2·61) for the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (with or without HER2-targeted therapy; p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score remained prognostic for event-free survival in multivariable models adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status at baseline: the adjusted HR ranged from 1·52 (1·36-1·69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2·09 (1·73-2·53) in the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (p<0·0001 for all subtypes).

interpretationRCB score and class were independently prognostic in all subtypes of breast cancer, and generalisable to multiple practice settings. Although variability in hormone receptor subtype definitions and treatment across patients are likely to affect prognostic performance, the association we observed between RCB and a patient's residual risk suggests that prospective evaluation of RCB could be considered to become part of standard pathology reporting after neoadjuvant therapy.

fundingNational Cancer Institute at the US National Institutes of Health.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualYoung AdultERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID34902335
PMCPMC9455620
OpenAlexW4200028620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.