The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer
Open accessAbstract
Only a few papers have been published concerning the incidence and outcome of patients with a pathological complete response after cytotoxic treatment in breast cancer. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients found to have a pathological complete response in both the breast and axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Our goal was also to determine whether the residual pathological size of the tumour in breast could be correlated with pathological node status. Between 1982 and 2000, 451 consecutive patients were registered into five prospective phase II trials. After six cycles, 396 patients underwent surgery with axillary dissection for 277 patients (69.9%). Pathological response was evaluated according to the Chevallier's classification. At a median follow-up of 8 years, survival was analysed as a function of pathological response. A pathological complete response rate was obtained in 60 patients (15.2%) after induction chemotherapy. Breast tumour persistence was significantly related to positive axillary nodes (P=5.10(-6)). At 15 years, overall survival and disease-free survival rates were significantly higher in the group who had a pathological complete response than in the group who had less than a pathological complete response (P=0.047 and P=0.024, respectively). In the absence of pathological complete response and furthermore when there is a notable remaining pathological disease, axillary dissection is still important to determine a major prognostic factor and subsequently, a second non cross resistant adjuvant regimen or high dose chemotherapy could lead to a survival benefit.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Spring, L. M., Fell, G., Arfe, A., Sharma, C., Greenup, R., Reynolds, K. L., Smith, B. L., Alexander, B., Moy, B., Isakoff, S. J., et al. (2020) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3492 · Cited by 938
von Minckwitz, G., Raab, G., Caputo, A., Schütte, M., Hilfrich, J., Blohmer, J. U., Gerber, B., Costa, S. D., Merkle, E., Eidtmann, H., et al. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.05.078 · Cited by 417
Marinovich, M. L., Houssami, N., Macaskill, P., Sardanelli, F., Irwig, L., Mamounas, E. P., von Minckwitz, G., Brennan, M. E., & Ciatto, S. (2013) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djs528 · Cited by 382
Loo, C. E., Straver, M. E., Rodenhuis, S., Muller, S. H., Wesseling, J., Vrancken Peeters, M.-J. T. F. D., & Gilhuijs, K. G. A. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.31.1258 · Cited by 304
Dressman, H. K., Hans, C., Bild, A., Olson, J. A., Rosen, E., Marcom, P. K., Liotcheva, V. B., Jones, E. L., Vujaskovic, Z., Marks, J., et al. (2006) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-05-1447 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Chollet, P., Amat, S., Cure, H., de Latour, M., Le Bouedec, G., Mouret-Reynier, M.-A., Ferriere, J.-P., Achard, J.-L., Dauplat, J., & Penault-Llorca, F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1041-1046
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2013920437
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600210
- The paper
- Chollet, P., Amat, S., Cure, H., de Latour, M., Le Bouedec, G., Mouret-Reynier, M.-A., Ferriere, J.-P., Achard, J.-L., Dauplat, J., & Penault-Llorca, F. (2002). Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600210
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.