Case 3: Implications of Residual Disease on TNBC Outcomes

EP: 1.Case 1: 53-Year-Old Woman With TNBC

EP: 2.Case 1: IMpassion 130 Trial Design and Results

EP: 3.Case 1: KEYNOTE-355 Trial Design and Considerations

EP: 4.Case 1: Treatment Recommendations for PD-L1+ TNBC

EP: 5.Case 2: 34-Year-Old Woman With TNBC

EP: 6.Case 2: Considerations for PARP Inhibitor Use in TNBC

EP: 7.Case 2: Study Design and Data for PARP Inhibitors in TNBC

EP: 8.Case 3: 48-Year-Old Woman With Stage T2N1 TNBC

Now Viewing

EP: 9.Case 3: Implications of Residual Disease on TNBC Outcomes

EP: 10.Case 3: Residual Disease in TNBC and Treatment Considerations

EP: 11.Case 3: Practical Considerations for Use of Sacituzumab Govitecan

EP: 12.Case 3: Precision Medicine in Metastatic Breast Cancer

EP: 13.Case 3: Clinical Trial Inclusion in TNBC: Considerations and Barriers

EP: 14.Metastatic TNBC Case Overview

EP: 15.Early Stage Options for Patients With Metastatic TNBC

EP: 16.IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 Trials in Patients With Metastatic TNBC: Part 1

EP: 17.IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355 Trials in Patients With Metastatic TNBC: Part 2

EP: 18.Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations in Metastatic TNBC

EP: 19.Immune-Related Adverse Effects of ICI Therapies in Metastatic TNBC

EP: 20.Clinical Pearls for Treating Patients With Metastatic TNBC

Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD: I want to go back to the top of this case. David, this is another example from this evening’s discussion in which a patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then had residual disease. Can you talk to us a little about some of the path considerations and how you evaluate the breast tissue and the lymph nodes in a patient who’s received neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Could you maybe speak a little about residual cancer burden?

David G. Hicks, MD: Sure. It’s important to know that the patient has had neoadjuvant therapy before we start to examine the specimen. I have to admit, they don’t always tell us that. One of our practices is to read the operation note and the clinical notes on every lumpectomy or mastectomy, just so we have a better sense. We also like to know, if it’s a mastectomy, where in the breast tissue the lesion was. Oftentimes we’ll be looking at the history and the imaging.

When we examine the breast tissue, we want to look for a tumor bed. About 30% to 40% of the time with a complete pathologic response, we won’t find any growth tumor left behind in the breast tissue. But oftentimes we can see this fibrous area that the tumor occupied before the treatment. We need to measure that area and give an estimation of that. We also completely examine all lymphoid tissue that’s submitted. We often submit the entire tumor bed sequentially. For years, we’ve used the residual cancer burden [RCB] score using the algorithm from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, which was quite powerful in predicting survival. That’s true for triple-negative and other breast cancer subtypes: where you’re putting in information about the tumor bed, the cellularity of invasive tumor, the percentage of the tumor that’s DCIS [ductal carcinoma in situ], and then the lymph nodes. It turns out, having a residual disease in the lymph nodes is much more heavily weighted because it’s based on the prognosis. If it’s a complete pathologic response, which means there isn’t a residual tumor in the breast tissue and in the lymph nodes, it’s a PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. That’s good news.

The T [tumor] staging is a little tricky because in primary breast cancers that haven’t had neoadjuvant therapy, we might calculate the size. But in patients with minimal residual disease, what you tend to see are little bits of tumor here and there across the tumor bed. You don’t want to calculate that. It’s going to grossly overestimate how much tumor is left behind. The rule is to find the largest confluent area of tumor on a slide and measure that for the T stage. It’s fairly easy to do. It takes a couple of extra steps. We enter the data on the MD Anderson website, and it calculates a residual cancer burden score and class. It’s very helpful to the breast surgeons but maybe more so to the medical oncologists.

Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD: The work you’re referring to, the RCB, was championed by William Fraser Symmans. I had the privilege of calling Fraser a colleague when I was at MD Anderson. It’s notable that in patients who experienced a pathologic complete response and no residual invasive disease in the breast tissue or lymphomas, receive a score called an RCB 0. Their prognosis is outstanding. It actually doesn’t look that different from patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

Transcript edited for clarity.