Browsing by Subject "neoadjuvant therapy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer with Nonluminal Subtype Derive Greatest Benefit from Platinum Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
    (AUA, 2022-03) Lotan, Yair; de Jong, Joep J.; Liu, Vinnie Y. T.; Bismar, Tarek A.; Boorjian, Stephen A.; Huang, Huei-Chung; Davicioni, Elai; Mian, Omar Y.; Wright, Jonathan L.; Necchi, Andrea; Dall'Era, Marc A.; Kaimakliotis, Hristos Z.; Black, Peter C.; Gibb, Ewan A.; Boormans, Joost L.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC) in patients with nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) confers an absolute survival benefit of 5%–10%. There is evidence that molecular differences between tumors may impact response to therapy, highlighting a need for clinically validated biomarkers to predict response to NAC. Materials and Methods: Four bladder cancer cohorts were included. Inverse probability weighting was used to make baseline characteristics (age, sex and clinical tumor stage) between NAC-treated and untreated groups more comparable. Molecular subtypes were determined using a commercial genomic subtyping classifier. Survival rates were estimated using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the primary and secondary study end points of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival, respectively. Results: A total of 601 patients with MIBC were included, of whom 247 had been treated with NAC and RC, and 354 underwent RC without NAC. With NAC, the overall net benefit to OS and cancer-specific survival at 3 years was 7% and 5%, respectively. After controlling for clinicopathological variables, nonluminal tumors had greatest benefit from NAC, with 10% greater OS at 3 years (71% vs 61%), while luminal tumors had minimal benefit (63% vs 65%) for NAC vs non-NAC. Conclusions: In patients with MIBC, a commercially available molecular subtyping assay revealed nonluminal tumors received the greatest benefit from NAC, while patients with luminal tumors experienced a minimal survival benefit. A genomic classifier may help identify patients with MIBC who would benefit most from NAC.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group
    (Nature, 2015-07) Provenzano, Elena; Bossuyt, Veerle; Viale, Giuseppe; Cameron, David; Badve, Sunil; Denkert, Carsten; MacGrogan, Gaëtan; Penault-Llorca, Frédérique; Boughey, Judy; Curigliano, Giuseppe; Dixon, J. Michael; Esserman, Laura; Fastner, Gerd; Kuehn, Thorsten; Peintinger, Florentia; von Minckwitz, Gunter; White, Julia; Yang, Wei; Symmans, W. Fraser; Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is being used increasingly in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. Response, in the form of pathological complete response, is a validated and evaluable surrogate end point of survival after neoadjuvant therapy. Thus, pathological complete response has become a primary end point for clinical trials. However, there is a current lack of uniformity in the definition of pathological complete response. A review of standard operating procedures used by 28 major neoadjuvant breast cancer trials and/or 25 sites involved in such trials identified marked variability in specimen handling and histologic reporting. An international working group was convened to develop practical recommendations for the pathologic assessment of residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer and information expected from pathology reports. Systematic sampling of areas identified by informed mapping of the specimen and close correlation with radiological findings is preferable to overly exhaustive sampling, and permits taking tissue samples for translational research. Controversial areas are discussed, including measurement of lesion size, reporting of lymphovascular space invasion and the presence of isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy, and retesting of markers after treatment. If there has been a pathological complete response, this must be clearly stated, and the presence/absence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ must be described. When there is residual invasive carcinoma, a comment must be made as to the presence/absence of chemotherapy effect in the breast and lymph nodes. The Residual Cancer Burden is the preferred method for quantifying residual disease in neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer; other methods can be included per trial protocols and regional preference. Posttreatment tumor staging using the Tumor–Node–Metastasis system should be included. These recommendations for standardized pathological evaluation and reporting of neoadjuvant breast cancer specimens should improve prognostication for individual patients and allow comparison of treatment outcomes within and across clinical trials.