E. Shelley Hwang

PURPOSE: To develop guideline recommendations concerning optimal neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and provide recommended care options. RESULTS: A total of 41 articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy should be managed by a multidisciplinary care team. Appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant therapy include patients with inflammatory breast cancer and those in whom residual disease may prompt a change in therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy can also be used to reduce the extent of local therapy or reduce delays in initiating therapy. Although tumor histology, grade, stage, and estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression should routinely be used to guide clinical decisions, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of other markers or genomic profiles. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have clinically node-positive and/or at least T1c disease should be offered an anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen; those with cT1a or cT1bN0 TNBC should not routinely be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Carboplatin may be offered to patients with TNBC to increase pathologic complete response. There is currently insufficient evidence to support adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy. In patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be used when a treatment decision can be made without surgical information. Among postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative disease, hormone therapy can be used to downstage disease. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive disease should be offered neoadjuvant therapy in combination with anti-HER2-positive therapy. Patients with T1aN0 and T1bN0, HER2-positive disease should not be routinely offered neoadjuvant therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Background: : Propensity score (PS) analysis is increasingly being used in observational studies, especially in some cancer studies where random assignment is not feasible. This systematic review evaluates the use and reporting quality of PS analysis in oncology studies. Methods: : We searched PubMed to identify the use of PS methods in cancer studies (CS) and cancer surgical studies (CSS) in major medical, cancer, and surgical journals over time and critically evaluated 33 CS published in top medical and cancer journals in 2014 and 2015 and 306 CSS published up to November 26, 2015, without earlier date limits. The quality of reporting in PS analysis was evaluated. It was also compared over time and among journals with differing impact factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: More than 50% of the publications with PS analysis from the past decade occurred within the past two years. Of the studies critically evaluated, a considerable proportion did not clearly provide the variables used to estimate PS (CS 12.1%, CSS 8.8%), incorrectly included non baseline variables (CS 3.4%, CSS 9.3%), neglected the comparison of baseline characteristics (CS 21.9%, CSS 15.6%), or did not report the matching algorithm utilized (CS 19.0%, CSS 36.1%). In CSS, the reporting of the matching algorithm improved in 2014 and 2015 ( P = .04), and the reporting of variables used to estimate PS was better in top surgery journals ( P = .008). However, there were no statistically significant differences for the inclusion of non baseline variables and reporting of comparability of baseline characteristics. Conclusions: The use of PS in cancer studies has dramatically increased recently, but there is substantial room for improvement in the quality of reporting even in top journals. Herein we have proposed reporting guidelines for PS analyses that are broadly applicable to different areas of medical research that will allow better evaluation and comparison across studies applying this approach.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) now represents 20-25% of all 'breast cancers' consequent upon detection by population-based breast cancer screening programmes. Currently, all DCIS lesions are treated, and treatment comprises either mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy. However, most DCIS lesions remain indolent. Difficulty in discerning harmless lesions from potentially invasive ones can lead to overtreatment of this condition in many patients. To counter overtreatment and to transform clinical practice, a global, comprehensive and multidisciplinary collaboration is required. Here we review the incidence of DCIS, the perception of risk for developing invasive breast cancer, the current treatment options and the known molecular aspects of progression. Further research is needed to gain new insights for improved diagnosis and management of DCIS, and this is integrated in the PRECISION (PREvent ductal Carcinoma In Situ Invasive Overtreatment Now) initiative. This international effort will seek to determine which DCISs require treatment and prevent the consequences of overtreatment on the lives of many women affected by DCIS.

BACKGROUND: Increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates observed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for some subsets of patients with invasive breast cancer have prompted interest in whether patients who achieved a pCR can be identified preoperatively and potentially spared the morbidity of surgery. The objective of this multicenter, retrospective study was to estimate the accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting a pCR in the breast. METHODS: MRI studies at baseline and after the completion of NCT plus data regarding pathologic response were collected retrospectively from 746 women who received treatment at 8 institutions between 2002 and 2011. Tumors were characterized by immunohistochemical phenotype into 4 categories based on receptor expression: hormone (estrogen and progesterone) receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (n = 327), HR-positive/HER2-positive, (n = 148), HR-negative/HER2-positive, (n = 101), and triple-negative (HR-negative/HER2 negative; n = 155). In all, 194 of 249 patients (78%) with HER2-positive tumors received trastuzumab. Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with radiographic complete response (rCR) and pCR were performed. RESULT: For the total group, the rCR and pCR rates were 182 of 746 patients (24%) and 179 of 746 patients (24%), respectively, and the highest pCR rate was observed for the triple-negative subtype (57 of 155 patients; 37%) and the HER2-positive subtype (38 of 101 patients; 38%). The overall accuracy of MRI for predicting pCR was 74%. The variables sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy differed significantly among tumor subtypes, and the greatest negative predictive value was observed in the triple-negative (60%) and HER2-positive (62%) subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The overall accuracy of MRI for predicting pCR in invasive breast cancer patients who were receiving NCT was 74%. The performance of MRI differed between subtypes, possibly influenced by differences in pCR rates between groups. Future studies will determine whether MRI in combination with directed core biopsy improves the predictive value of MRI for pathologic response.