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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of cancer 2021-04, Vol.124 (8), p.1421-1427 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1427 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1421 |
| container_title | British journal of cancer |
| container_volume | 124 |
| creator | Laas, Enora Labrosse, Julie Hamy, Anne-Sophie Benchimol, Gabriel de Croze, Diane Feron, Jean-Guillaume Coussy, Florence Balezeau, Thomas Guerin, Julien Lae, Marick Pierga, Jean-Yves Reyal, Fabien |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41416-020-01251-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8039034</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2510999312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-560b1a7b834bd4689d031236496b289fa289b2541794a441eff0188607f273743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAURi1ERYeBP8ACWWJTFqF-JbZZIDFToJUqkCpYW05yM-NRYgc7qdQ9P7wuKeWxYGPLusef7_VB6AUlbyjh6jQJKmhVEEYKQllJC_4IrWjJWUEVk4_RihAiC6IZOUZPUzrkoyZKPkHHnJelkpSu0I8zmCAOztvJBY9Dh-sINk24sb6BiMcYdj4kl7DtMog9BNse5mvrM7KHIUx7iHa8eYubMIw2urSkXEFy7Wx7vF1yNnNsweOTq-3mNba-xZ8hFBsXUhMiPENHne0TPL_f1-jbxw9ft-fF5ZdPF9v3l0UjpJiKsiI1tbJWXNStqJRuCaeMV0JXNVO6s3mpWSmo1MIKQaHrCFWqIrJjkkvB1-jdkjvO9QBtA36KtjdjdIONNyZYZ_6ueLc3u3BtFOGa8LuAk_uAGL7PkCYzuNRA39v8L3MyTCgphdZcZvTVP-ghzNHn8UxWRXSGcu9rxBaqiSGlCN1DM5SYO8lmkWyyZPNTsuH50ss_x3i48stqBvgCpFzyO4i_3_5P7C0JrLKX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2510999312</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Laas, Enora ; Labrosse, Julie ; Hamy, Anne-Sophie ; Benchimol, Gabriel ; de Croze, Diane ; Feron, Jean-Guillaume ; Coussy, Florence ; Balezeau, Thomas ; Guerin, Julien ; Lae, Marick ; Pierga, Jean-Yves ; Reyal, Fabien</creator><creatorcontrib>Laas, Enora ; Labrosse, Julie ; Hamy, Anne-Sophie ; Benchimol, Gabriel ; de Croze, Diane ; Feron, Jean-Guillaume ; Coussy, Florence ; Balezeau, Thomas ; Guerin, Julien ; Lae, Marick ; Pierga, Jean-Yves ; Reyal, Fabien</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1827</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-01251-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33558711</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/67/1347 ; 692/4028/67/1347 ; 692/699/67/1059/99 ; Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Cancer Research ; Chemotherapy ; Drug Resistance ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Humans ; Invasiveness ; Medical prognosis ; Middle Aged ; Molecular Medicine ; Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods ; Neoplasm Staging ; Neoplasm, Residual ; Oncology ; Population ; Prognosis ; Survival Analysis ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>British journal of cancer, 2021-04, Vol.124 (8), p.1421-1427</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Cancer Research UK 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Cancer Research UK 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-560b1a7b834bd4689d031236496b289fa289b2541794a441eff0188607f273743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-560b1a7b834bd4689d031236496b289fa289b2541794a441eff0188607f273743</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9416-5601 ; 0000-0002-2318-3589</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8039034/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8039034/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33558711$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Laas, Enora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrosse, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamy, Anne-Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benchimol, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Croze, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feron, Jean-Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coussy, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balezeau, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerin, Julien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lae, Marick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierga, Jean-Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyal, Fabien</creatorcontrib><title>Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore</title><title>British journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>631/67/1347</subject><subject>692/4028/67/1347</subject><subject>692/699/67/1059/99</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Drug Resistance</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Invasiveness</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Molecular Medicine</subject><subject>Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0007-0920</issn><issn>1532-1827</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAURi1ERYeBP8ACWWJTFqF-JbZZIDFToJUqkCpYW05yM-NRYgc7qdQ9P7wuKeWxYGPLusef7_VB6AUlbyjh6jQJKmhVEEYKQllJC_4IrWjJWUEVk4_RihAiC6IZOUZPUzrkoyZKPkHHnJelkpSu0I8zmCAOztvJBY9Dh-sINk24sb6BiMcYdj4kl7DtMog9BNse5mvrM7KHIUx7iHa8eYubMIw2urSkXEFy7Wx7vF1yNnNsweOTq-3mNba-xZ8hFBsXUhMiPENHne0TPL_f1-jbxw9ft-fF5ZdPF9v3l0UjpJiKsiI1tbJWXNStqJRuCaeMV0JXNVO6s3mpWSmo1MIKQaHrCFWqIrJjkkvB1-jdkjvO9QBtA36KtjdjdIONNyZYZ_6ueLc3u3BtFOGa8LuAk_uAGL7PkCYzuNRA39v8L3MyTCgphdZcZvTVP-ghzNHn8UxWRXSGcu9rxBaqiSGlCN1DM5SYO8lmkWyyZPNTsuH50ss_x3i48stqBvgCpFzyO4i_3_5P7C0JrLKX</recordid><startdate>20210412</startdate><enddate>20210412</enddate><creator>Laas, Enora</creator><creator>Labrosse, Julie</creator><creator>Hamy, Anne-Sophie</creator><creator>Benchimol, Gabriel</creator><creator>de Croze, Diane</creator><creator>Feron, Jean-Guillaume</creator><creator>Coussy, Florence</creator><creator>Balezeau, Thomas</creator><creator>Guerin, Julien</creator><creator>Lae, Marick</creator><creator>Pierga, Jean-Yves</creator><creator>Reyal, Fabien</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9416-5601</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2318-3589</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210412</creationdate><title>Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore</title><author>Laas, Enora ; Labrosse, Julie ; Hamy, Anne-Sophie ; Benchimol, Gabriel ; de Croze, Diane ; Feron, Jean-Guillaume ; Coussy, Florence ; Balezeau, Thomas ; Guerin, Julien ; Lae, Marick ; Pierga, Jean-Yves ; Reyal, Fabien</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-560b1a7b834bd4689d031236496b289fa289b2541794a441eff0188607f273743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>631/67/1347</topic><topic>692/4028/67/1347</topic><topic>692/699/67/1059/99</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Drug Resistance</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Invasiveness</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Molecular Medicine</topic><topic>Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Laas, Enora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrosse, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamy, Anne-Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benchimol, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Croze, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feron, Jean-Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coussy, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balezeau, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guerin, Julien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lae, Marick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierga, Jean-Yves</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyal, Fabien</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Laas, Enora</au><au>Labrosse, Julie</au><au>Hamy, Anne-Sophie</au><au>Benchimol, Gabriel</au><au>de Croze, Diane</au><au>Feron, Jean-Guillaume</au><au>Coussy, Florence</au><au>Balezeau, Thomas</au><au>Guerin, Julien</au><au>Lae, Marick</au><au>Pierga, Jean-Yves</au><au>Reyal, Fabien</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore</atitle><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle><stitle>Br J Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><date>2021-04-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>124</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1421</spage><epage>1427</epage><pages>1421-1427</pages><issn>0007-0920</issn><eissn>1532-1827</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>33558711</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41416-020-01251-3</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9416-5601</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2318-3589</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-0920 |
| ispartof | British journal of cancer, 2021-04, Vol.124 (8), p.1421-1427 |
| issn | 0007-0920 1532-1827 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8039034 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | 631/67/1347 692/4028/67/1347 692/699/67/1059/99 Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy Breast Neoplasms - pathology Cancer Research Chemotherapy Drug Resistance Epidemiology Female Humans Invasiveness Medical prognosis Middle Aged Molecular Medicine Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods Neoplasm Staging Neoplasm, Residual Oncology Population Prognosis Survival Analysis Treatment Outcome |
| title | Determination of breast cancer prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) and Neo-Bioscore |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A06%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determination%20of%20breast%20cancer%20prognosis%20after%20neoadjuvant%20chemotherapy:%20comparison%20of%20Residual%20Cancer%20Burden%20(RCB)%20and%20Neo-Bioscore&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Laas,%20Enora&rft.date=2021-04-12&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1421&rft.epage=1427&rft.pages=1421-1427&rft.issn=0007-0920&rft.eissn=1532-1827&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41416-020-01251-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2510999312%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2510999312&rft_id=info:pmid/33558711&rfr_iscdi=true |