Abraham, Jean

Abstract Introduction: Pathological complete response (pCR) is a strong prognostic marker, but survival outcomes comparing treatment to control do not reliably align with treatment-control differences in pCR rates in breast cancer. A novel Bayesian hierarchical framework models treatments within trials, allowing us to predict treatment effects on distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) from pCR with greater accuracy. Methods: We analyzed 12 neoadjuvant breast cancer trials (6,000 patients, all HR/HER2 subtypes; including I-SPY2). The framework of Burzykowski, Molenberghs & Buyse (2005) is extended to a novel arm-based hierarchical structure providing a distribution of pCR and DRFS treatment effects controlling for subtype (HR/HER2), N and T stage, grade, and calendar year. Three held-out trials (877 patients; 26 regimens; med follow-up >4 years) validate predictions of DRFS treatment benefit from pCR. All data was used to estimate treatment-effect correlation and the surrogate threshold effect (STE). Analyses were repeated for Residual Cancer Burden Index (binary RCB01, continuous RCB). Results: Predicted probability of DRFS benefit closely matched actual DRFS follow-up (mean absolute error 0.06; Pearson r = 0.9). Across all trials, pCR showed moderate surrogacy (ρ = 0.82, R2 = 0.67). A 60% increase in pCR odds achieves ≥95% probability of DRFS benefit (STE = OR of 1.60). RCB outperforms pCR across all metrics, with 92% sensitivity and 93% specificity for detecting DRFS benefit in 26 validation regimens (Table 1). Conclusion: This novel Bayesian meta-analytic framework reveals that pCR, RCB01 and continuous RCB reliably predict survival benefit across heterogeneous trials, with RCB performing the best in an external validation. This provides a statistical foundation for accelerated approval decisions using robust early biomarkers in modern neoadjuvant trial designs by accurately predicting survival at the treatment arm level. Citation Format: Keli S. Santos-Parker, Jessica R. Santos-Parker, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J. Esserman, Christina Yau, Angie DeMichele, Laura van't Veer, Doug Yee, Fabien Reyal, Helena Earl, Jean Abraham, David Cameron, Peter Hall, Judy Boughey, Matthew Goetz, Gabe Sonke, Miguel Martín, Sara López-Tarruella, Priyanka Sharma, Rachel Freiberg, Jane Perlmutter, Aditya Bardia, Martin Eklund, Rachel Freiberg, Lajos Pusztai. A novel statistical framework for surrogate endpoint prediction of survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 1401.

Abstract Background: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown on the patient level to predict excellent long-term event-free survival outcomes. Residual cancer burden (RCB) quantifies the extent of residual disease for patients who did not achieve pCR. We have previously observed in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL that while metastatic events outside the central nervous system (CNS) were dramatically reduced in the setting of pCR, the incidence of CNS metastasis remained similar across RCB classes, raising the possibility that these CNS events may be independent of response in the breast. In this study, we evaluate the type and sites of recurrences by RCB in a large pooled dataset, which allows for analysis within subtype, to validate these findings. Methods: 5161 patients pooled across 12 institutions/trials with available RCB and event-free survival (EFS) data were included in this analysis. EFS was calculated as the interval between treatment initiation, and locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or death from any cause; patients without event are censored at time of last follow-up. The median follow-up is 4.6 years. We summarized the EFS event type, further sub-dividing the distant recurrence events (DR) by their site of relapse (CNS-only, CNS and other sites, Non-CNS). We used a competing risk (Fine-Gray) model to assess which of these site-specific relapses differ between RCB classes and estimated the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS events at 5 years. Analyses were performed across the entire study population and within HR/HER2 defined subtypes. Results: Among the 5161 subjects, there were 1164 EFS events, including 92 (7.9%) local recurrences (without distant recurrence and/or death) and 1072 distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) events. Among the DRFS events, 158 patients died without a distant recurrence. 914 experienced distant recurrences, including 90 (9.8%) with CNS-only, 145 (15.9%) with CNS and other sites, 664 (72.6%) with non-CNS distant recurrence; 15 (1.6%) patients had missing recurrence site information. Table 1 summarizes the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS recurrence at 5 years and the proportion of CNS-only recurrences among DR events by RCB class overall and within each HR/HER2 subtypes. The incidence of CNS-only recurrences was low and similar across RCB classes. In contrast, the incidence of non-CNS recurrences increases with increasing RCB. As a result, CNS-only recurrences are proportionally higher within the RCB-0 and RCB-I than in the RCB-II and RCB-III groups, largely because of the low DR event rate and relative low frequency of non-CNS recurrence events within the RCB-0 and RCB-I classes. Overall, 27% of the recurrences in the setting of pCR (RCB-0) are due to CNS-only recurrences.Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, our large pooled analysis confirmed that CNS-only recurrences are uncommon but appear similar across RCB groups, independent of response, suggesting that the CNS is a treatment sanctuary site. In contrast, non-CNS recurrence rates increase as RCB increases. These findings suggest that inclusion of CNS-only recurrences as an outcome event may impact the association between neoadjuvant therapy response and long-term outcomes in the context of current therapies. Novel therapies that cross the blood brain barrier will be needed to impact CNS recurrence rates. Table 1: Cumulative Incidence of CNS Only and non-CNS Distant Recurrences at 5 years and proportion of CNS-only events among DR eventsRCB Class0IIIIIIpOverall (5161)N16766622017806Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%2%2%1%0.627Cum. Inc. Non-CNS3%6%16%27%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)26/96 (27%)14/74 (19%)39/443 (9%)11/301 (4%)HR-HER2- (1774)N770212590202Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%3%2%4%0.298Cum. Inc. Non-CNS4%11%19%42%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)13/50 (26%)6/32 (19%)13/148 (9%)8/111 (7%)HR-HER2+ (572)N3766710029Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%5%5%0%0.022Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%5%18%38%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)4/17 (24%)3/10 (30%)6/31 (19%)0/13 (0%)HR+HER2+ (858)N31317229182Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%1%2%0%0.37Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%3%15%26%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)3/10 (30%)2/16 (12%)7/68 (10%)0/29 (0%)HR+HER2- (1957)N2172111036493Cum. Inc. CNS Only3%2%1%0.2%0.087Cum. Inc. Non-CNS5%4%13%20%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)6/19 (32%)3/16 (19%)13/196 (7%)3/148 (2%) Citation Format: Sonal Shad, Marieke van der Noordaa, Marie Osdoit, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Miguel Martin, María Del Monte-Millán, Sara López-Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew P Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebekah Gould, Vicente Valero, Gabe Sonke, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephen Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna Mackintosh, Fan Fang, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura Van't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Christina Yau. Site of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy: A multi-center pooled analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-02.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer is associated with improved survival. Further assessment of the extent of residual disease, using the pathological anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer staging method (ypStage) or the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) method, have been shown to add prognostic information for patients with residual disease. Neo-Bioscore, an alternate system to classify response to NAC, includes clinical stage at diagnosis and biology and defines eight prognostic groups. The goal of this study was to compared three scoring systems (anatomic ypStage (7th ed), RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore) and assess whether RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic value in the context above anatomic ypStage, the most commonly used method for post-neoadjuvant residual disease assessment. Methods: Data from 5161 patients treated with NAC was pooled from 12 sites. Patients without clinical and pathological staging were excluded, as were patients with HER2+ breast cancer who did not receive neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy, leaving 3730 for analysis. PCR was defined as no residual invasive tumor in breast and nodes, i.e. RCB-0 or ypT0/Tis and ypN0. Patients with discordant pCR status by RCB Class vs ypStage (n=9) were excluded. Associations between each scoring system and event-free survival (EFS) were evaluated using the log rank test. EFS at 5 years was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Associations between Neo-Bioscore and EFS were assessed in the pCR group. For patients with residual disease, we assessed RCB and Neo-Bioscore within each ypStage. Analysis was performed overall and within subtype. Subgroups with <5 patients were excluded from the survival analyses. Results: ypAJCC staging, RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were all associated with EFS in the overall population and within each subtype (log rank p<0.0001). Of note, 13 patients with a Neo-Bioscore of 7 all recurred or died within 19 months of follow-up. Overall, 34% (1264/3721) of patients achieved a pCR. Their Neo-Bioscore ranges from 0-5, where 3% (37/1264) has a Neo-Bioscore of 5 despite achieving pCR. The Neo-Bioscore was not associated with EFS in case of a pCR, with EFS estimates at 5 years of 95%, 94%, 92%, 93%, 90% and 92% for Neo-Bioscores 0-5 respectively. As HR and HER2 status are components of the score, the range of Neo-Bioscore in the pCR group differs by subtype. However, similar to the overall analysis, the Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic within subtypes in case of pCR. Overall, among the patients who did not achieve pCR, both RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were associated with EFS within ypStages I, II and III. However, the ypStage within which RCB and Neo-Bioscore are prognostic is different for each subtype. RCB class was prognostic in ypStage I in both HR+ subtypes: patients with ypStage-I/RCB-I had significantly improved survival compared to patients with ypStage-I/RCB-II (5-year EFS: 100% vs 83% in HR+HER2- and 95% vs 77% in HR+HER2+). In contrast, for patients with triple negative breast cancer, RCB class was prognostic within ypStage II and III. Analysis by clinical stage and the components of the three systems that contribute most to prognosis will be presented. Conclusions: The degree of response to NAC adds important information to pCR versus residual disease. The Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic among patients with pCR, suggesting that clinical stage (including subtype and grade) adds little information in the setting of a pCR. In contrast, both RCB and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic information to the conventional ypAJCC staging among non-pCR patients, suggesting that clinical stage, tumor biology as well as extent of residual disease all contribute to prognosis in the setting of residual disease after NAC. Citation Format: Marieke EM van der Noordaa, Christina Yau, Sonal Shad, Marie Osdoit, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Maria Del Monte-Millán, Miguel Martin, Sara Lopez Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebecca Gould, Vincent Valero, Gabe Sonke, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephan Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna MacKintosh, Fang Fan, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberley Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura van 't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman. Assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant therapy: A comparison between anatomic ypAJCC staging, residual cancer burden class and neo-bioscore [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-07.

Abstract Background: Recent studies have demonstrated independent validation of the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, a pooled subject-level analysis of multiple cohorts is needed to determine estimates of long-term prognosis for each class of RCB in each phenotypic subtype of breast cancer (BC) to better inform on patient outcomes. Also, a pooled subject-level analysis allows more detailed analyses of generalizability of the prognostic meaning of RCB assessments in a broader experience of practice settings. Method: Subject-level RCB results, with relevant clinical and pathologic stage, tumor subtype and grade, demographic, treatment and follow-up data from 11 institutes/trials are being collected for combined analysis. The association between the continuous RCB index and event-free survival (EFS), and distant recurrence free survival (DRFS) were assessed using mixed effect Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB coefficients to account for between-study heterogeneity. We will also allow for differences in baseline hazard across biological BC subtypes and, if needed, across studies as well. In addition to this stratified mixed effect model, a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, T-category, nodal status and grade was performed within each subtype. In addition, mixed effect Cox models will be employed to evaluate association between RCB index with EFS and DRFS within each HR/HER2 subtype. Kaplan Meier estimates of EFS and DRFS at 5 and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within subtype. Results: We analyzed subject-level data from 9 institutes/trials representing 4077 patients currently available from an anticipated final total of 4,800 patients (to be presented at the meeting). There were 950 EFS and 876 DRFS events during follow up (median 65 months, IQR: 70 months). RCB index (continuous) was independently prognostic within each subtype: HR+/HER2- (EFS HR (per unit increase in RCB index) =1.64, 95%CI 1.48-1.82; DRFS HR=1.68, 1.51-1.87), HR+/HER2+ (EFS HR=1.80, 1.57-2.05; DRFS HR=1.93, 1.67-2.24), HR-/HER2+ (EFS HR=2.15, 1.76-2.62; DRFS HR=2.10, 1.77-2.50), and HR-/HER2- (EFS HR=2.05, 1.89-2.22; DRFS HR=2.16, 1.90-2.46); and remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis. Table 1 contains the response rate and estimated EFS at 5 years and 10 years for each RCB class within each HR/HER2 phenotype (DRFS results were similar). Conclusions: Long-term prognosis after pCR was similarly excellent in all phenotypic subtypes. RCB index and classification was independently and strongly prognostic in all subtypes, and generalizable to multiple practice settings. Prognostic differences by RCB class occurred within 5 years in HR- BC, but extended to 10 years in HR+ BC. RCB-I had slightly worse EFS than pCR in HR- BC and HR+/HER2+ BC (after 5 years), but the same EFS as pCR in HR+/HER2- BC. Complete analysis of all subjects, including neoadjuvant treatments, will be presented at the meeting. PhenotypeOutcomepCRRCB-IRCB-IIRCB-IIIHR+/HER2-Frequency (%)11%10%52%27%(N=1467)5 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)93% (89-98)82% (79-85)70% (65-75)10 yr EFS (95% CI)84% (75-93)88% (82-95)71% (67-75)52% (46-58)HR+/HER2+Frequency (%)38%18%35%9%(N=762)5 yr EFS (95% CI)94% (91-97)93% (88-98)78% (73-84)49% (37-65)10 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)79% (70-90)65% (59-73)42% (29-60)HR-/HER2+Frequency (%)66%11%18%5%(N=550)5 yr EFS (95% CI)93% (90-96)88% (79-97)60% (50-71)45% (30-69)10 yr EFS (95% CI)90% (86-94)84% (74-95)56% (46-68)45% (30-69)HR-/HER2-Frequency (%)41%13%33%13%(N=1293)5 yr EFS (95% CI)92% (90-94)85% (79-91)68% (63-72)28% (21-36)10 yr EFS (95% CI)87% (82-91)80% (72-88)63% (58-68)24% (18-33) Citation Format: Christina Yau, Marieke van der Noordaa, Jane Wei, Marie Osdoit, Fabien Reyal, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Miguel Martin, Maria del Monte, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Rebekah Gould, Jelle Wesseling, Tessa Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Gabe Sonke, Stephen Edge, Stephen-John Sammut, Elena Provenzano, Jean Abraham, Peter Hall, Ashley Graham, Lorna Mackintosh, David Cameron, Alice Wang, Priyanka Sharma, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Mi-Ok Kim, Laura van ‘t Veer, Laura Esserman, W. Fraser Symmans. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A multi-center pooled analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS5-01.