Abstract P6-09-14: Prognostic significance of a modified residual disease in breast and nodes (mRDBN) algorithm after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer
Authors: Farrugia DJ , Landmann A , McAuliffe PF , Diego EJ , Johnson R , Bonaventura M , Soran A , Dabbs DJ , Clark B , Lembersky BC , Puhalla SL , Brufsky A , Jankowitz R , Davidson NE , Ahrendt GM , Bhargava R 
Published: March 2017

Abstract
Background: Patients achieving pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy have excellent disease free and overall survival. For patients with residual disease, the residual disease in breast and lymph node (RDBN) method provides useful prognostic information. RDBN is calculated as follows: 0.2*tumor size (in cm)+lymph node status (0-3) + tumor grade (1-3). pCR, low, intermediate and high risk of recurrence categories correspond to RDBN index of 0, 0.1 to 2.9, 3 to &lt;4.4, and ≥ 4.4, respectively. We hypothesized that the prognostic accuracy of RDBN may be improved by also taking into account the residual tumor cellularity.
Methods: Retrospective review of 614 consecutive patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer was performed. At our institution, tumor size/volume reduction in the breast is determined using the equation:
Estimated % tumor size reduction = [(pre-therapy clinical size – “revised” pathology tumor size)/pre-therapy clinical size]*100.
“Revised” pathology tumor size is calculated by multiplying the largest dimension of the gross tumor bed by the invasive tumor cellularity of the tumor bed (in comparison to the pre-therapy core biopsy sample). For example, if a 3 cm tumor bed has only 50% cellularity for invasive cancer (in comparison to pre-therapy core biopsy), the revised tumor size is 1.5 cm. Hence, we were able to use the “revised tumor size” for calculating the modified RDBN index (mRDBN). We also used gross tumor bed size for gross RDBN (gRDBN) to compare with mRDBN. mRDBN and gRDBN could be calculated on 459 of the 514 cases. Chi-Square statistical analysis was performed.
Results: Mean follow up was 33.1 months (median 31, range 4-70).
The results are shown in Table 1 & 2.
Table 1. Overall Recurrence and MortalityRDBN Score Category Overall Recurrence Mortality nn (%)RR95% CI; pn (%)RR95% CI; pmRDBN (n=459)High5829 (50.0)19.63[7.22, 53.40]; p=&lt;0.000118 (31.0)16.24[4.97, 53.10]; p=&lt;0.0001Intermed16433 (20.1)7.9[2.86, 21.78]; p=&lt;0.000115 (9.1)4.79[1.41, 16.21]; p=0.006Low803 (3.8)1.47[0.34, 6.42]; p=0.694 (5.0)2.62[0.60, 11.41]; p=0.23pCR1574 (2.5)REF 3 (1.9)REF gRDBN (n=459)High8131 (38.3)15.02[5.49, 41.09]; p=&lt;0.000119 (23.5)12.28[3.74, 40.26]; p=&lt;0.0001Intermed14932 (21.5)8.43[3.05, 23.26]; p=&lt;0.000116 (10.7)5.62[1.67, 18.89]; p=0.003Low722 (2.8)1.09[0.20, 5.82]; p=12 (2.8)1.45[0.25, 8.51]; p=1pCR1574 (2.5)REF 3 (1.9)REF
Table 2; Reclassification of gRDBN categoriesgRDBN mRDBN ReclassificationClassificationnLow (%)Intermed (%)High (%)Low7272 (100)0 (0)0 (0)Intermed1498 (5.4)140 (93.9)1 (0.7)High810 (0)24 (29.6)57 (70.4)
Conclusions: Both mRDBN and gRDBN provide prognostic information; however, separation of categories is improved with mRDBN (Table 1). mRDBN reclassified 30% of the high risk-gRDBN patients into intermediate risk category with a recurrence rate of 20%, leaving the 'true' high risk subgroup with a revised recurrence rate of 50% (Table 2). RDBN index also identified a group of low risk patients who have prognosis similar to patients with pCR.
Citation Format: Farrugia DJ, Landmann A, McAuliffe PF, Diego EJ, Johnson R, Bonaventura M, Soran A, Dabbs DJ, Clark B, Lembersky BC, Puhalla SL, Brufsky A, Jankowitz R, Davidson NE, Ahrendt GM, Bhargava R. Prognostic significance of a modified residual disease in breast and nodes (mRDBN) algorithm after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-14.