Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore

Background To compare RCB (Residual Cancer Burden) and Neo-Bioscore in terms of prognostic performance and see if adding pathological variables improve these scores. Methods We analysed 750 female patients with invasive breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at Institut Curie between 2002 and 2012. Scores were compared in global population and by BC subtype using Akaike information criterion (AIC), C-Index (concordance index), calibration curves and after adding lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and pre-/post-NAC TILs levels. Results RCB and Neo-Bioscore were significantly associated to disease-free and overall survival in global population and for triple-negative BC. RCB had the lowest AICs in every BC subtype, corresponding to a better prognostic performance. In global population, C-Index values were poor for RCB (0.66; CI [0.61-0.71]) and fair for Neo-Bioscore (0.70; CI [0.65-0.75]). Scores were well calibrated in global population, but RCB yielded better prognostic performances in each BC subtype. Concordance between the two scores was poor. Adding LVI and TILs improved the performance of both scores. Conclusions Although RCB and Neo-Bioscore had similar prognostic performances, RCB showed better performance in BC subtypes, especially in luminal and TNBC. By generating fewer prognostic categories, RCB enables an easier use in everyday clinical practice.

Automated summary

The study compared the prognostic performance of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore in different subtypes of breast cancer, finding that RCB had better prognostic performance in various subtypes. In the global population, both RCB and Neo-Bioscore were associated with disease-free and overall survival, but RCB had lower concordance index values.