Conference Coverage

Residual cancer burden linked to long-term survival


 

REPORTING FROM SABCS 2019


The results showed that both EFS and DRFS were strongly associated with RCB for the overall population and each subtype. For instance, for triple-negative breast cancer, patients with pathologic complete response had a 10-year EFS of 86%, a rate that decreased as RCB increased from RCB-I (75%) to RCB-II (61%), and finally, RCB-III (25%). This trend was similar for patients with HR-negative/HER2-positive or HR-positive/HER2-positive disease. Risk stratification for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease deviated slightly; pathologic complete response was associated with a 10-year EFS of 81%, compared with 86% for RCB-I.

Regarding this finding, Dr. Symmans noted that RCB is most prognostic when higher levels of residual disease are present. Still, reviewing long-term risk across subtypes, Dr. Fraser emphasized the reliability of RCB as a prognostic tool.

“The strong relationship [between RCB and] risk is very clear in each and every subtype of disease,” he said. “There are very tight confidence intervals around those risk estimates.”

Multivariate analysis provided further support for this conclusion, as RCB was independently prognostic for survival in each subtype of disease.

According to Dr. Esserman, the study findings should encourage implementation of RCB in daily practice.

“There has to be training and a commitment to using this in a consistent way so that we can all rely on the information,” Dr. Esserman said. “This is critical for our patients, and this is ... how we’re going to get people to the best outcome, and [it should be done] up front, when we still have the chance to cure people.”

Session moderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of Mays Cancer Center, San Antonio, agreed that clinicians should use RCB in practice; however, she also explained that RCB results for some patients are not yet actionable.

Dr. Virginia Kaklamani, Mays Cancer Center, San Antonio Will Pass/MDedge News

Dr. Virginia Kaklamani

“I ask my pathologist to give me the RCB score,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “The question is, what do I do with the results? It’s a little limited. In triple-negative patients I may consider giving capecitabine in the adjuvant setting, or obviously enrolling them in clinical trials. In my HER2-positive patients, I will look at the results from the KATHERINE trial and the ExteNET trial to guide me. In my HR-positive patients, I’m still waiting for results from other trials to see how these results can be interpreted. What we’ve [found] is in many trials, achieving a pathologic complete response in HR-positive patients may not be as important, but as you can see here, it looks like RCB really is.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Seattle Genetics, Almac, Syndax, and others.

SOURCE: Yau et al. SABCS. 2019 Dec 13. Abstract GS5-01.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Failed ATEMPT: T-DM1 no safer in early HER2+ breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Novel agent boosts adjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Trastuzumab deruxtecan has good activity in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Tucatinib called game-changer in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Capecitabine extends survival in triple-negative breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Ten-year results support partial breast irradiation
Breast Cancer ICYMI
APHINITY 6-year data: Benefit ongoing in HER2+ early BC, no significant OS benefit
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Promising new neoadjuvant strategy in luminal B breast cancer
Breast Cancer ICYMI
Pembrolizumab plus chemo boosts pCR rate in TNBC
Breast Cancer ICYMI
TNBC: Adding capecitabine boosts disease-free survival in prospective trial
Breast Cancer ICYMI