Skip to main content

Treatment Efficacy Score (TES), a continuous residual cancer burden-based metric to compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy between trial arms in the I-SPY 2 trial.

Abstract

587
Background: Residual cancer burden (RCB) is a continuous score that captures the amount of residual cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and predicts disease recurrence and survival across all breast cancer subtypes. RCB score 0 corresponds to pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0, ypN0). We hypothesize that comparison of the distributions of RCB scores between randomized treatment arms of a trial could predict treatment effect on recurrence free survival better than comparison of pCR rates only. Methods: The cancer Treatment Efficacy Score (TES) compares efficacies of two treatments using non-continuous RCB results. We examined (i) area between cumulative distribution (ABC) functions; (ii) density ratio of RCB scores; and (iii) density difference of RCB scores from two treatments, to select the most efficient metric to compute TES. A random permutation procedure was used to estimate the p-value from each test. These methods were applied to data from the durvalumab/olaparib arm and corresponding controls of the I-SPY2 trial, separately by molecular subtype. In subsampling and simulation experiments we assessed robustness of results including power and false positive rate control under variable sample sizes to select the most robust TES metric. The other 11 experimental arms of I-SPY2 were used to assess the performance of the final metric. We calculated correlation between TES and (i) pCR rate difference, and 3- and 5-year (ii) event-free (EFS) and (iii) distant recurrence free survivals (DRFS). Results: RCB scores are multimodal and do not follow normal distribution.In simulated data ABC provided more stable results than the other methods, had good power, performed well with small sample sizes, resulted in low false positive rate, required the least computational time, and therfore was selected as the TES metric for validation in 11 arms of I-SPY2. We found a high correlation between difference in pCR rate and TES value across all molecular subtypes in each of the 11 trial arms (r = 0.92, p = 1.7e-8). There was also significant linear relationship between TES and survival estimates in EFS (r = 0.58, p = 9.3e-3 for 3-years survival; r = 0.62, p = 4.8e-3 for 5-years survival) and DRFS (r = 0.56, p = 1.2e-2 for 3-years survival; r = 0.54, p = 1.8e-2 for 5-years survival). Statistically significant TES score correlated significantly with higher benefit in 3-years survival (p = 9.7e-4 for EFS; p = 5.7e-3 for DRFS) and 5-years survival (p = 9.7e-4 for EFS; p = 3.0e-3 for DRFS). In most instances, this correlation with survival was higher than seen with pCR difference. Conclusions: TES is a novel more optimal metric to identify the more effective cytotoxic neoadjuvant regimen from the entire distribution of pathologic response that significantly correlates with event and recurrence free survival and may serve as a better surrogate than pCR rate difference.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Journal of Clinical Oncology
Pages: 587

History

Published in print: May 20, 2021
Published online: May 28, 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Michal Marczyk
Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland;
Anna Mrukwa
Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland;
Christina Yau
Buck Institute for Age Research, Novato, CA;
Denise M. Wolf
UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA;
Laura van 't Veer
Agendia, and The University of California San Francisco, San Francsico, CA;
Laura Esserman
University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA;
William Fraser Symmans
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX;
Lajos Pusztai
Yale University, New Haven, CT;
Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland; Buck Institute for Age Research, Novato, CA; UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Agendia, and The University of California San Francisco, San Francsico, CA; University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Yale University, New Haven, CT

Notes

Funding Information

The I-SPY Trials. Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Altmetric

Citations

Article Citation

Download Citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format





Download article citation data for:
Michal Marczyk, Anna Mrukwa, Christina Yau, Denise M. Wolf, Laura van 't Veer, Laura Esserman, William Fraser Symmans, Lajos Pusztai
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2021 39:15_suppl, 587-587

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Personal login Institutional Login

Purchase Options

Purchase this article to get full access to it.

Purchase this Article

Subscribe

Subscribe to this Journal
Renew Your Subscription
Become a Member

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share