Clinical usefulness and relevance of intermediate endpoints for cytotoxic neoadjuvant therapy

Abstract

Intermediate endpoints are surrogate markers of treatment efficacy assessed earlier than the true outcome of interest. Tumor response after systemic neoadjuvant therapy is considered a suitable intermediate endpoint, especially for specific breast cancer subtypes. Response can be evaluated either after only 1 cycle of treatment by clinical evaluation or at the end of the planned neoadjuvant treatment by histomorphologic examination of all surgically removed tissues from the breast and regional nodes. Although several meta-analyses showed a lower risk of death among patients who attain a pathologic complete response (pCR) compared with patients with residual tumor in breast and/or lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy, a statistically significant linkage between increased pCR rate by a specific treatment and improvement of survival by the same treatment has not been demonstrated yet. Therefore, formal surrogacy of pCR is not established. Moreover, the better definition of pCR is still an open issue: a large pooled analysis demonstrated that patients who attained ypT0 ypN0 (no invasive or non-invasive residual cancer in breast and nodes) experienced longer DFS (p < 0.001) compared with patients who attained ypTis ypN0 (no invasive residual in breast and nodes irrespective of residual non-invasive disease). Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently allowed using pCR as a surrogate endpoint for accelerated approval process. Several meta-analyses demonstrated the greatest prognostic value of pCR in more aggressive breast cancer subtypes (i.e. triple-negative, HER2-positive, or high grade breast cancer). Usefulness of an earlier intermediate endpoints was prospectively demonstrated in the GeparTrio trial in which patients showing an early response achieved 4-times more frequently a pCR than those without early response.