Is adjuvant chemotherapy of benefit for postmenopausal women who receive endocrine treatment for highly endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer? International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VII and 12-93.

To compare the efficacy of chemoendocrine treatment with that of endocrine treatment (ET) alone for postmenopausal women with highly endocrine responsive breast cancer. In the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trials VII and 12-93, postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or ER-negative, operable breast cancer were randomized to receive either chemotherapy or endocrine therapy or combined chemoendocrine treatment. Results were analyzed overall in the cohort of 893 patients with endocrine-responsive disease, and according to prospectively defined categories of ER, age and nodal status. STEPP analyses assessed chemotherapy effect. The median follow-up was 13 years. Adding chemotherapy reduced the relative risk of a disease-free survival event by 19% (P = 0.02) compared with ET alone. STEPP analyses showed little effect of chemotherapy for tumors with high levels of ER expression (P = 0.07), or for the cohort with one positive node (P = 0.03). Chemotherapy significantly improves disease-free survival for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, but the magnitude of the effect is substantially attenuated if ER levels are high.

Efforts to standardise Ki-67 counting in breast cancer. A pilot study of the Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists

Goals: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasing based on the pathologist's assessment of the proliferation fraction in the tumor. Yet, how good and how reproducible are we pathologists at providing reliable Ki-67 readings on breast carcinomas. Exactly how to count and in which areas to count within a tumor remains inadequately standardized. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has tried to appreciate this dilemma and to propose ways to obtain more reproducible results.Methods: In a first phase, 5 pathologists evaluated Ki67 counts in 10 breast cancers by exact counting (500 cells) and by eyeballing. Pathologists were free to select the region in which Ki67 was evaluated. In a second phase 16 pathologists evaluated Ki-67 counts in 3 breast cancers also by exact counting and eyeballing, but in predefined fields of interest. In both phases, Ki67 was assessed in centrally immunostained slides (ZH) and on slides immunostained in the 11 participating laboratories. In a third phase, these same 16 pathologists were once again asked to read the 3 cases from phase 2, plus three new cases, and this time exact guidelines were provided as to what exactly is considered a Ki-67 positive nucleus.Results: Discordance of Ki67 assessment was due to each of the following 4 factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique/protocol/antibody, and (iv) the selection of the area in which to count.Conclusion: Providing guidelines as to where to count (representative field in the tumor periphery and omitting hot spots) and what nuclei to count (even faintly immunostained nuclei count as positive) reduces the discordance rates of Ki67 readings between pathologists. Laboratory technique is only of minor importance (even over a large antibody dilution range), and counting nuclei does not improve accuracy, but rather aggravates deviations from the group mean values.Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

Le cancer du sein sans envahissement ganglionnaire. Au-delà des consensus internationaux: une approche pragmatique [Node negative breast cancer. Beyond international consensus: a pragmatic approach].

Apart from therapeutic advances related to new treatments, our practices in the management of early breast cancer have been modified by to key organizational settings (1) mass screening, substantially altering the presentation and epidemiology of breast cancer and (2) the development of guidelines to ensure that any patient management is in agreement with the demonstrated impact in the adjuvant treatment. In daily practice, the impact of screening and guidelines recommendations has put us now in a paradoxical situation: while the majority of non-metastatic breast cancers treated in the hexagon are node negative, most of the results of clinical studies on chemotherapy and targeted therapies today arise from populations predominantly node positive. Therefore, it seemed legitimate to convene a working group around a reflection on the directions of adjuvant chemotherapy in a growing node negative population in order to better respond to the questions of the field oncologists, trying to address the discrepancies between different existing guidelines.

Mammographic screening for breast cancer: background of a pilot program in the Canton of Vaud.

For several years now, substantial efforts have been devoted to the development and the implementation of a screening program for breast cancer in the Canton of Vaud. A four-year pilot phase is now starting, involving two regional hospitals with their catchment areas; women over 50 and under 70 years old will be invited to participate in the program. A double view mammography will be made, with a double reading made by the hospital radiologists; a third reading will be made in case of discrepancy between the two first radiologists. Patients classified as positive for screening (e.g., with a suspect radiological image) will be referred to their practitioner for further diagnosis and treatment. The medical and public health background of this program is discussed, more specifically the reasons for developing a screening program, the choice of mammography rather than other tools, and the need to implement screening as an organized program.

Effects of Exemestane and Tamoxifen Treatment on Bone Texture Analysis Assessed by TBS in Comparison With Bone Mineral Density Assessed by DXA in Women With Breast Cancer.

We performed an analysis of a substudy of the randomized Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial to determine the effects of exemestane (EXE) and tamoxifen (TAM) adjuvant treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry compared with the trabecular bone score, a novel grey-level texture measurement that correlates with 3-dimensional parameters of bone texture in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer for the first time. In total, 36 women were randomized to receive TAM (n = 17) or EXE (n = 19). Patients receiving TAM showed a mean increase of BMD in lumbar spine from baseline of 1.0%, 1.5%, and 1.9% and in trabecular bone score of 2.2%, 3.5%, and 3.3% at 6-, 12-, and 24-mo treatment, respectively. Conversely, patients receiving EXE showed a mean decrease from baseline in lumbar spine BMD of -2.3%, -3.6%, and -5.3% and in trabecular bone score of -0.9%, -1.7%, and -2.3% at 6-, 12-, and 24-mo treatment, respectively. Changes in trabecular bone score from baseline at spine were also significantly different between EXE and TAM: p = 0.05, 0.007, and 0.006 at 6, 12, and 24mo, respectively. TAM induced an increase in BMD and bone texture analysis, whereas EXE resulted in decreases. The results were independent from each other.

Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer have persistent, long-term risk of breast-cancer recurrence and death. Therefore, trials assessing endocrine therapies for this patient population need extended follow-up. We present an update of efficacy outcomes in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study at 8·1 years median follow-up. METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a randomised, phase 3, double-blind trial of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer that compares 5 years of tamoxifen or letrozole monotherapy, or sequential treatment with 2 years of one of these drugs followed by 3 years of the other. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks, and stratified according to the two-arm or four-arm randomisation option, participating institution, and chemotherapy use. Patients, investigators, data managers, and medical reviewers were masked. The primary efficacy endpoint was disease-free survival (events were invasive breast cancer relapse, second primaries [contralateral breast and non-breast], or death without previous cancer event). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). The monotherapy comparison included patients randomly assigned to tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years. In 2005, after a significant disease-free survival benefit was reported for letrozole as compared with tamoxifen, a protocol amendment facilitated the crossover to letrozole of patients who were still receiving tamoxifen alone; Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates with inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) are used to account for selective crossover to letrozole of patients (n=619) in the tamoxifen arm. Comparison of sequential treatments to letrozole monotherapy included patients enrolled and randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, or tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. Treatment has ended for all patients and detailed safety results for adverse events that occurred during the 5 years of treatment have been reported elsewhere. Follow-up is continuing for those enrolled in the four-arm option. BIG 1-98 is registered at clinicaltrials.govNCT00004205. FINDINGS: 8010 patients were included in the trial, with a median follow-up of 8·1 years (range 0-12·4). 2459 were randomly assigned to monotherapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and 2463 to monotherapy with letrozole for 5 years. In the four-arm option of the trial, 1546 were randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, 1548 to tamoxifen for 5 years, 1540 to letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, and 1548 to tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. At a median follow-up of 8·7 years from randomisation (range 0-12·4), letrozole monotherapy was significantly better than tamoxifen, whether by IPCW or intention-to-treat analysis (IPCW disease-free survival HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·74-0·92], overall survival HR 0·79 [0·69-0·90], DRFI HR 0·79 [0·68-0·92], BCFI HR 0·80 [0·70-0·92]; intention-to-treat disease-free survival HR 0·86 [0·78-0·96], overall survival HR 0·87 [0·77-0·999], DRFI HR 0·86 [0·74-0·998], BCFI HR 0·86 [0·76-0·98]). At a median follow-up of 8·0 years from randomisation (range 0-11·2) for the comparison of the sequential groups with letrozole monotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the four endpoints for either sequence. 8-year intention-to-treat estimates (each with SE ≤1·1%) for letrozole monotherapy, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole were 78·6%, 77·8%, 77·3% for disease-free survival; 87·5%, 87·7%, 85·9% for overall survival; 89·9%, 88·7%, 88·1% for DRFI; and 86·1%, 85·3%, 84·3% for BCFI. INTERPRETATION: For postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, a reduction in breast cancer recurrence and mortality is obtained by letrozole monotherapy when compared with tamoxifen montherapy. Sequential treatments involving tamoxifen and letrozole do not improve outcome compared with letrozole monotherapy, but might be useful strategies when considering an individual patient's risk of recurrence and treatment tolerability. FUNDING: Novartis, United States National Cancer Institute, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Concurrent or Sequential Adjuvant Hormonoradiotherapy after Conservative Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Clinical Results of the CO-HO-RT Phase II Randomized Trial.

Purpose: Letrozole (LET) has recently been shown to be superior to tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients (pts). In addition, LET radiosensitizes breast cancer cells in vitro. We conducted a phase II randomized study to evaluate concurrent and sequential radiotherapy (RT)-LET in the adjuvant setting. We present here clinical results with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal pts with early-stage breast cancer were randomized after conservative surgery to either: A) concurrent RT-LET (LET started 3 weeks before the first day of RT) or B) sequential RT-LET (LET started 3 weeks after the end of RT). Whole breast RT was delivered to a total dose of 50 Gy. A 10-16 Gy boost was allowed according to age and pathological prognostic factors. Pts were stratified by center, adjuvant chemotherapy, boost, and radiation-induced CD8 apoptosis (RILA). RILA was performed before RT as previously published (Ozsahin et al. Clin Cancer Res, 2005). An independent monitoring committee reviewed individual safety data. Skin toxicities were evaluated by two different clinicians at each medical visit (CTCAE v3.0). Lung CT-scan and functional pulmonary tests were performed regularly. DNA samples were screened for SNPs in candidate genes as recently published (Azria et al., Clin Cancer Res, 2008). Results: A total of 150 pts were randomized between 01/05 and 02/07. Median follow-up is 26 months (range, 3-40 months). No statistical differences were identified between the two arms in terms of mean age; initial TNM; median surgical bed volume; post surgical breast volume. Chemotherapy and RT boost were delivered in 19% and 38% of pts, respectively. Nodes received 50 Gy in 23% of patients without differences between both arms. During RT and within the first 6 weeks after RT, 10 patients (6.7%) presented grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during RT but no differences were observed between both arms (4 and 6 patients in arm A and B, respectively). At 26 month of follow-up, grade 2 and more radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis (RISCF) was present in 4 patients (3%) without any difference between arm A (n = 2) and B (n = 2), p=0.93. In both arms, all patients that presented a RICSF had a RILA lower than 16%. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 39%, respectively.No acute lung toxicities were observed and quality of life was good to excellent for all patients.SNPs analyses are still on-going (Pr Rosenstein, NY). Conclusion: Acute and early late grade 2 dermatitis were similar in both arms. The only factor that influenced RISCF was a low radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis yield. We confirmed prospectively the capacity of RILA for identifying hypersensitive patients to radiation. Indeed, patients with RILA superior to 16% did not present late effects to radiation and confirmed the first prospective trial we published in 2005 (Ozsahin et al., Clin Cancer Res).

Breast-conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: relationship of lumpectomy resection margins measurements between remote perioperative ultrasound and postoperative histopathology

Purpose: Tumour-free resection margins (RMs) are mandatory in breast-conserving surgery. On-site intraoperative ultrasound (US)-guided tumour resection with extemporaneous histopathological assessment of RMs has been described. Remote intraoperative US assessment of RMs is an alternative. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of lumpectomy RMs measurements between remote intraoperative US and postoperative histopathology.Methods and Materials: In a retrospective IRB-approved review of 100 consecutive lumpectomies performed between October 2009 and April 2011 for presumed non-palpable breast cancer, 71 women (mean age 63.8years) were included. Twenty-nine patients were excluded because of absence of cancer at histopathology and/or incomplete data. Measurements of lumpectomy minimal RMs and tumour maximal diameter obtained on remote intraoperative US and postoperative histopathology were compared.Results: Minimal RMs were 0.35±0.32 (mean±SD) and 0.35±0.32cm on remote intraoperative US and postoperative histopathology, respectively. No significant difference was found between these measurements (p=0.37). Tumour maximal diameter was 1.02±0.51 (mean±SD) and 1.33±0.74cm on remote intraoperative US and postoperative histopathology, respectively. US measurements were significantly smaller (p<0.001). The 71 breast carcinoma (CA) consisted of: invasive canalar (n=49), invasive lobular (n=11), in situ (n=3) and other types of CA (n=8). Twenty-nine patients had intraoperative re-excision (24 without residual CA), while 16 patients were re-operated due to insufficient histopathological RMs (12 without residual CA).Conclusion: Good correlation of minimal RMs between remote intraoperative US and postoperative histopathology warrants use of both techniques in a complementary manner. Remote intraoperative US is helpful in taking rapid decision of re-excision and maintaining low re-operation rate after breast-conserving surgery for non-palpable cancer.

Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A 70-gene signature was previously shown to have prognostic value in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Our goal was to validate the signature in an independent group of patients. METHODS: Patients (n = 307, with 137 events after a median follow-up of 13.6 years) from five European centers were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on the gene signature classification and on clinical risk classifications. Patients were assigned to the gene signature low-risk group if their 5-year distant metastasis-free survival probability as estimated by the gene signature was greater than 90%. Patients were assigned to the clinicopathologic low-risk group if their 10-year survival probability, as estimated by Adjuvant! software, was greater than 88% (for estrogen receptor [ER]-positive patients) or 92% (for ER-negative patients). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare time to distant metastases, disease-free survival, and overall survival in high- versus low-risk groups. RESULTS: The 70-gene signature outperformed the clinicopathologic risk assessment in predicting all endpoints. For time to distant metastases, the gene signature yielded HR = 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35 to 4.00) without adjustment for clinical risk and hazard ratios ranging from 2.13 to 2.15 after adjustment for various estimates of clinical risk; clinicopathologic risk using Adjuvant! software yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.68 (95% CI = 0.92 to 3.07). For overall survival, the gene signature yielded an unadjusted HR = 2.79 (95% CI = 1.60 to 4.87) and adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 2.63 to 2.89; clinicopathologic risk yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.67 (95% CI = 0.93 to 2.98). For patients in the gene signature high-risk group, 10-year overall survival was 0.69 for patients in both the low- and high-clinical risk groups; for patients in the gene signature low-risk group, the 10-year survival rates were 0.88 and 0.89, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 70-gene signature adds independent prognostic information to clinicopathologic risk assessment for patients with early breast cancer.

hMMP9 as predictive factor for response and progression free survival in breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)

Background: The anti-angiogenic drug, bevacizumab (Bv), is currently used in the treatment of different malignancies including breast cancer. Many angiogenesis-associated molecules are found in the circulation of cancer patients. Until now, there are no prognostic or predictive factors identified in breast cancer patients treated with Bv. We present here the first results of the prospective monitoring of 6 angiogenesis-related molecules in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients treated with a combination of Bv and PLD in the phase II trial, SAKK 24/06. Methods: Patients were treated with PLD (20 mg/m2) and Bv (10 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 4-week cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles, followed by Bv monotherapy maintenance (10 mg/m2 q2 weeks) until progression or severe toxicity. Plasma and serum samples were collected at baseline, after 2 months of therapy, then every 3 months and at treatment discontinuation. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Quantikine, R&D Systems and Reliatech) were used to measure the expression levels of human vascular endothelial growth factor (hVEGF), placental growth factor (hPlGF), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (hMMP9) and soluble VEGF receptors hsVEGFR-1, hsVEGFR-2 and hsVEGFR-3. The log-transformed data (to reduce the skewness) for each marker was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to determine if there was a difference between the mean of the subgroups of interest (where α = 0.05). The untransformed data was also analyzed in the same manner as a "sensitivity" check. Results: 132 blood samples were collected in 41 out of 43 enrolled patients. Baseline levels of the molecules were compared to disease status according to RECIST. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean of the log-transformed levels of hMMP9 between responders [CR+PR] versus the mean in patients with PD (p-value=0.0004, log fold change=0.7536), and between patients with disease control [CR+PR+SD] and those with PD (p-value=<0.0001, log fold change=0.81559), with the log-transformed level of hMMP9 being higher for the responder group. The mean of the log-transformed levels of hsVEGFR-1 was statistically significantly different between patients with disease control [CR+PR+SD] and those with PD (p-value=0.0068, log fold change=-0.6089), where the log-transformed level of hsVEGFR-1 was lower for the responder group. The log-transformed level of hMMP9 at baseline was identified as a significant prognostic factor in terms of progression free survival (PFS): p-value=0.0417, hazard ratio (HR)=0.574 with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (0.336 - 0.979)). No strong correlation was shown either between the log-transformed levels of hsVEGF, hPlGF, hsVEGFR-2 or hsVEGFR-3 and clinical response or the occurrence of severe toxicity, or between the levels of the different molecules. Conclusions: Our results suggest that baseline plasma level of the matrix metalloproteinase, hMMP9, could predict tumor response and PFS in patients treated with a combination of Bv and PLD. These data justify further investigation in breast cancer patients treated with anti-angiogenic therapy.

Chemoendocrine compared with endocrine adjuvant therapies for node-negative breast cancer: predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors--International Breast Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: To centrally assess estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) levels by immunohistochemistry and investigate their predictive value for benefit of chemo-endocrine compared with endocrine adjuvant therapy alone in two randomized clinical trials for node-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VIII compared cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy for 6 cycles followed by endocrine therapy with goserelin with either modality alone in pre- and perimenopausal patients. Trial IX compared three cycles of CMF followed by tamoxifen for 5 years versus tamoxifen alone in postmenopausal patients. Central Pathology Office reviewed 883 (83%) of 1,063 patients on Trial VIII and 1,365 (82%) of 1,669 on Trial IX and determined ER and PgR by immunohistochemistry. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared across the spectrum of expression of each receptor using the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot methodology. RESULTS: Both receptors displayed a bimodal distribution, with substantial proportions showing no staining (receptor absent) and most of the remainder showing a high percentage of stained cells. Chemo-endocrine therapy yielded DFS superior to endocrine therapy alone for patients with receptor-absent tumors, and in some cases also for those with low levels of receptor expression. Among patients with ER-expressing tumors, additional prediction of benefit was suggested in absent or low PgR in Trial VIII but not in Trial IX. CONCLUSION: Low levels of ER and PgR are predictive of the benefit of adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy. Low PgR may add further prediction among pre- and perimenopausal but not postmenopausal patients whose tumors express ER.

Axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer and Melanoma Patients after Previous Axillary Surgery: A Systematic Review

Objective: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a validated staging technique for breast carcinoma. Some women are exposed to have a second SLNB due to breast cancer recurrence or a second neoplasia (breast or other). Due to modi- fied anatomy, it has been claimed that previous axillary surgery represents a contra-indication to SLNB. Our objective was to analyse the literature to assess if a second SLNB is to be recommended or not. Methods: For the present study, we performed a review of all published data during the last 10 years on patients with previous axilla surgery and second SLNB. Results: Our analysis shows that second SLNB is feasible in 70%. Extra-axillary SNs rate (31%) was higher after radical lymph node dissection (ALND) (60% - 84%) than after SLNB alone (14% - 65%). Follow-up and com- plementary ALND following negative and positive second SLNB shows that it is a reliable procedure. Conclusion: The review of literature confirms that SLNB is feasible after previous axillary dissection. Triple technique for SN mapping is the best examination to highlight modified lymphatic anatomy and shows definitively where SLNB must be per- formed. Surgery may be more demanding as patients may have more frequently extra-axillary SN only, like internal mammary nodes. ALND can be avoided when second SLNB harvests negative SNs. These conclusions should however be taken with caution because of the heterogeneity of publications regarding SLNB and surgical technique.

Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an independent predictive factor irrespective of simplified breast cancer intrinsic subtypes: a landmark and two-step approach analyses from the EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response (pCR) following chemotherapy is strongly associated with both breast cancer subtype and long-term survival. Within a phase III neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial, we sought to determine whether the prognostic implications of pCR, TP53 status and treatment arm (taxane versus non-taxane) differed between intrinsic subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either six cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy or three cycles of docetaxel then three cycles of eprirubicin/docetaxel (T-ET). pCR was defined as no evidence of residual invasive cancer (or very few scattered tumour cells) in primary tumour and lymph nodes. We used a simplified intrinsic subtypes classification, as suggested by the 2011 St Gallen consensus. Interactions between pCR, TP53 status, treatment arm and intrinsic subtype on event-free survival (EFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied using a landmark and a two-step approach multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Sufficient data for pCR analyses were available in 1212 (65%) of 1856 patients randomized. pCR occurred in 222 of 1212 (18%) patients: 37 of 496 (7.5%) luminal A, 22 of 147 (15%) luminal B/HER2 negative, 51 of 230 (22%) luminal B/HER2 positive, 43 of 118 (36%) HER2 positive/non-luminal, 69 of 221(31%) triple negative (TN). The prognostic effect of pCR on EFS did not differ between subtypes and was an independent predictor for better EFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.40, P < 0.001 in favour of pCR], DMFS (HR = 0.32, P < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.32, P < 0.001). Chemotherapy arm was an independent predictor only for EFS (HR = 0.73, P = 0.004 in favour of T-ET). The interaction between TP53, intrinsic subtypes and survival outcomes only approached statistical significance for EFS (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: pCR is an independent predictor of favourable clinical outcomes in all molecular subtypes in a two-step multivariate analysis. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 Trial registration number NCT00017095.