Ki67 Measured after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Primary Breast Cancer

Abstract

Abstract Purpose: The value of Ki67 measured on residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not sufficiently described. Experimental Design: Participants of the GeparTrio study with primary breast cancer randomly received neoadjuvant response-guided [8 cycles TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) in responding and TAC-NX (vinorelbine/capecitabine) in nonresponding patients] or conventional (6 cycles TAC) chemotherapy according to interim response assessment. Ki-67 levels were centrally measured immunohistochemically after neoadjuvant treatment if tumor tissue was available. Here, we analyze 1,151 patients having a pathologic complete response (pCR; n, 484), or residual disease with low (0–15%), intermediate (15.1–35%), or high (35.1–100%) posttreatment Ki67 levels in 488, 77, and 102 patients, respectively. Results: Patients with high posttreatment Ki67 levels showed higher risk for disease relapse (P &amp;lt; 0.0001) and death (P &amp;lt; 0.0001) compared with patients with low or intermediate Ki67 levels. Patients with low Ki67 levels showed a comparable outcome to patients with a pCR (P = 0.211 for disease-free and P = 0.779 for overall survival). Posttreatment Ki67 levels provided more prognostic information than pretreatment Ki67 levels or changes of Ki67 from pre- to posttreatment. Information on pCR plus posttreatment Ki67 levels surmount the prognostic information of pCR alone in hormone–receptor-positive disease [hazard ratios (HR), 1.82–5.88] but not in hormone–receptor-negative disease (HR: 0.61–1.73). Patients with conventional and response-guided treatment did not show a different distribution of posttreatment Ki67 (P = 0.965). Conclusions: Posttreatment Ki67 levels provide prognostic information for patients with hormone–receptor-positive breast cancer and residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Levels were not prognostic for outcome after response-guided chemotherapy. High posttreatment Ki67 indicates the need for innovative postneoadjuvant treatments. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4521–31. ©2013 AACR.</jats:p