Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,742

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis

Open access
Cortazar, Patricia, Zhang, Lijun, Untch, Michael, Mehta, Keyur, Costantino, Joseph P, Wolmark, Norman, Bonnefoi, Hervé, Cameron, David, Gianni, Luca, Valagussa, Pinuccia, Swain, Sandra M, Prowell, Tatiana, Loibl, Sibylle, Wickerham, D Lawrence, Bogaerts, Jan, Baselga, Jose, Perou, Charles, Blumenthal, Gideon, Blohmer, Jens, Mamounas, Eleftherios P, Bergh, Jonas, Semiglazov, Vladimir, Justice, Robert, Eidtmann, Holger, Paik, Soonmyung, Piccart, Martine, Sridhara, Rajeshwari, Fasching, Peter A, Slaets, Leen, Tang, Shenghui, Gerber, Bernd, Geyer, Charles E, Pazdur, Richard, Ditsch, Nina, Rastogi, Priya, Eiermann, Wolfgang, von Minckwitz, Gunter·2014·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. FINDINGS We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). INTERPRETATION Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. FUNDING US Food and Drug Administration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 4,742

Metadata

Authors
Cortazar, P., Zhang, L., Untch, M., Mehta, K., Costantino, J. P., Wolmark, N., Bonnefoi, H., Cameron, D., Gianni, L., Valagussa, P., Swain, S. M., Prowell, T., Loibl, S., Wickerham, D. L., Bogaerts, J., Baselga, J., Perou, C., Blumenthal, G., Blohmer, J., Mamounas, E. P., Bergh, J., Semiglazov, V., Justice, R., Eidtmann, H., Paik, S., Piccart, M., Sridhara, R., Fasching, P. A., Slaets, L., Tang, S., Gerber, B., Geyer, C. E., Pazdur, R., Ditsch, N., Rastogi, P., Eiermann, W., & von Minckwitz, G.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
384
Issue
9938
Pages
164-172
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2075894019
Cited by
4,742
References
1
FWCI
75.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8
The paper
Cortazar, P., Zhang, L., Untch, M., Mehta, K., Costantino, J. P., Wolmark, N., Bonnefoi, H., Cameron, D., Gianni, L., Valagussa, P., Swain, S. M., Prowell, T., Loibl, S., Wickerham, D. L., Bogaerts, J., Baselga, J., Perou, C., Blumenthal, G., Blohmer, J., . . . von Minckwitz, G. (2014). Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62422-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.