The converse is also true: For patients who do not experience a path CR, MRI and tissue predictors could help to identify early in the course of therapy those patients who may need alternative treatments, he added.
“I think that this very clearly validates path CR as an incredibly powerful biomarker,” Eric P. Winer, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in the question-and-response session following Dr. Yee’s presentation.
Dr. Winer emphasized, however, “that this does not mean that we can use path CR in comparing treatment A and treatment B in a randomized trial to determine that one is better in terms of long-term outcome.”
I-SPY2 is sponsored by the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, with funding support from the William K Bowes Foundation, Give Breast Cancer the Boot, University of California San Francisco, The Biomarkers consortium, Quintiles, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Safeway. Dr. Yee reported having no relevant disclosures.
op@frontlinemedcom.com
SOURCE: Yee, D et al. SABCS Abstract GS3-08.