Estrogen receptor expression in residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

S Sarah K. Premji (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) T Tanya L. Hoskin (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Michael Gary Keeney (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) G Grace Mei Yee Choong (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) A Amye Juliet Tevaarwerk (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) K Karthik Giridhar (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) R Roberto Antonio Leon-Ferre (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) T Tufia C. Haddad (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) C Ciara Catherine O'Sullivan (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) E Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) T Timothy J. Hobday (Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) K Kathryn Jean Ruddy (Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) S Siddhartha Yadav P Prema P. Peethambaram (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) J James N. Ingle (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) J Judy Caroline Boughey (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Matthew P. Goetz

Abstract

529 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly administered to patients (pts) with estrogen receptor alpha (ER) negative (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 0%) and ER-low (IHC 1-10%) breast cancer (BC). For pts without pathological complete response (pCR), ER expression may differ between baseline and residual BC following NAC. We previously demonstrated adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) omission in ER-low early-stage BC was associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS); however, this effect was restricted to pts with residual BC following NAC and those with higher baseline ER levels (IHC 6-10%) (Choong et al., ASCO 2024). Here, we assessed how often ER was expressed in residual invasive BC for pts treated with NAC for ER-negative and ER-low BC. Methods: Weidentified pts with pre-treatment (tx) ER-negative and ER-low (regardless of HER2 expression) stage I-III BC treated with NAC who underwent BC surgery at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 2009 and 2023. ER IHC was performed in a CAP/CLIA laboratory. We evaluated ER expression in residual invasive BC for pts without pCR. The percent of pts with a post-tx change in ER status was estimated and reported with 95% Wilson confidence intervals. Results: 955 pts (838 [88%] pre-tx ER-negative; 117 [12%] pre-tx ER-low) met inclusion criteria, of whom 69% had HER2-negative and 31% HER2-positive BC. The median age at diagnosis was 52 (range: 24-86). 496 (52%) had residual BC. Residual BC was more common in HER2-negative versus (vs) positive tumors (56% vs 42%, p < 0.001) but did not differ significantly by ER status (ER-negative 51% vs ER-low 57%, p = 0.22). Of those with residual BC, 277/496 (56%) had ER re-testing. Rates of ER re-testing did not vary for pre-tx ER-negative vs -low (57% vs 51%, p = 0.37) but were significantly lower for HER2-positive vs HER2-negative tumors (39% vs 62%, p < 0.001). Among those with post-tx testing, 31/277 (11%, 95% CI: 8-15%) had an increase in ER expression from pretreatment levels (defined as ER IHC < 1% to either 1-10% or > 10%; or ER IHC 1-10% to > 10%). In these 31 pts, the original NAC was for either TNBC (21/31; 68%) or HER2+ BC (10/31; 32%). In pts with pre-tx ER-negative BC, 27/243 (11%, 95% CI: 8-16%) had ER expression in the residual BC including 14/243 (6%, 95% CI: 3-9%) with ER > 10% and 13/243 (5%, 95% CI: 3-9%) with ER 1-10%. For pts with baseline ER-low BC, 4/34 (12%, 95% CI: 5-27%) had ER > 10% in the residual BC. Among the 31 pts where ER increased following NAC, 21/31 (68%) received adjuvant ET, including 17/18 if ER was > 10% in the residual disease and 4/13 in those with ER 1-10%. Conclusions: In pts treated with NAC for ER-negative or ER-low BC not achieving pCR, we identified higher ER expression in the residual breast cancer in > 10% of pts. Given that omission of ET in ER-low BC with residual cancer following NAC is associated with worse survival, repeat biomarker testing should be considered in those without pCR, and ET individualized according to ER expression.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 529-529
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

S

Sarah K. Premji

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

T

Tanya L. Hoskin

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Michael Gary Keeney

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

G

Grace Mei Yee Choong

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

A

Amye Juliet Tevaarwerk

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

K

Karthik Giridhar

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

R

Roberto Antonio Leon-Ferre

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

T

Tufia C. Haddad

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

C

Ciara Catherine O'Sullivan

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

E

Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

T

Timothy J. Hobday

Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

K

Kathryn Jean Ruddy

Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

S

Siddhartha Yadav

P

Prema P. Peethambaram

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

J

James N. Ingle

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

J

Judy Caroline Boughey

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Matthew P. Goetz