1. Rubens, RD, Sexton, S, Tong, D, et al. Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1980; 16: 351–356.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. AIOM . AIOM Guidelines: Breast Neoplasia: Edizione 2019, https://www.aiom.it/linee-guida-aiom-neoplasie-della-mammella-2019/
Google Scholar3. Korde, LA, Somerfield, MR, Carey, LA, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39: 1485–1505.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Pernaut, C, Lopez, F, Ciruelos, E. Standard neoadjuvant treatment in early/locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Care 2018; 13: 244–249.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Zardavas, D, Piccart, M. Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Rev Med 2015; 66: 31–48.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. US Food & Drug Administration . Pathological Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of High-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Use as an Endpoint to Support Accelerated Approval, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/pathological-complete-response-neoadjuvant-treatment-high-risk-early-stage-breast-cancer-use (July 2020).
Google Scholar7. Huang, M, O’Shaughnessy, J, Zhao, J, et al. Association of pathologic complete response with long-term survival outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Res 2020; 80: 5427–5434.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Spring, LM, Fell, G, Arfe, A, et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2020; 26: 2838–2848.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Cortazar, P, Zhang, L, Untch, M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384: 164–172.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. von Minckwitz, G, Untch, M, Blohmer, JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1796–1804.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Bossuyt, V, Provenzano, E, Symmans, WF, et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1280–1291.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. AIOM . Raccomandazioni & Position Paper. IL RUOLO E LA VALUTAZIONE DELLA pCR IN eBC. 13 May 2021. https://www.aiom.it/il-ruolo-e-la-valutazione-della-pcr-in-ebc/
Google Scholar13. Fisher, ER, Wang, J, Bryant, J, et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 2002; 95: 681–695.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Viale, G . Characterization and clinical impact of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast 2013; 22 Suppl 2: S88–S91.
Google Scholar15. Mazouni, C, Peintinger, F, Wan-Kau, S, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2650–2655.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Provenzano, E, Bossuyt, V, Viale, G, et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group. Mod Pathol 2015; 28: 1185–1201.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Mrkonjic, M, Berman, HK, Done, SJ, et al. Breast specimen handling and reporting in the post-neoadjuvant setting: challenges and advances. J Clin Pathol 2019; 72: 120–132.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Hammond, ME, Hayes, DF, Dowsett, M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2784–2795.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Caparica, R, Lambertini, M, Pondé, N, et al. Post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease in breast cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2019; 11: 1758835919827714.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals20. Masuda, N, Lee, SJ, Ohtani, S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 2147–2159.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. von Minckwitz, G, Huang, CS, Mano, MS, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 617–628.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Mamounas, EP, Untch, M, Mano, MS, et al. Adjuvant T-DM1 versus trastuzumab in patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: subgroup analyses from KATHERINE. Ann Oncol 2021; 32: 1005–1014.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Marchiò, C, Maletta, F, Annaratone, L, et al. The perfect pathology report after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2015; 2015: 47–50.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Ellis, IO, Galea, M, Broughton, N, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer: II: histological type: relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1992; 20: 479–489.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Hamy, AS, Lam, GT, Laas, E, et al. Lymphovascular invasion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is strongly associated with poor prognosis in breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 169: 295–304.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. von Minckwitz, G, Schmitt, WD, Loibl, S, et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 4521–4531.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Symmans, WF, Peintinger, F, Hatzis, C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4414–4422.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline28. Niikura, N, Tomotaki, A, Miyata, H, et al. Changes in tumor expression of HER2 and hormone receptors status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21,755 patients from the Japanese breast cancer registry. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 480–487.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Montagna, E, Bagnardi, V, Viale, G, et al. Changes in PgR and Ki-67 in residual tumour and outcome of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 307–313.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Jabbour, MN, Massad, CY, Boulos, FI. Variability in hormone and growth factor receptor expression in primary versus recurrent, metastatic, and post-neoadjuvant breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 29–37.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Parinyanitikul, N, Lei, X, Chavez-MacGregor, M, et al. Receptor status change from primary to residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and analysis of survival outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer 2015; 15: 153–160.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline32. Rey-Vargas, L, Mejía-Henao, JC, Sanabria-Salas, MC, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant therapy on breast cancer biomarker profile. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 675.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline33. Robertson, S, Rönnlund, C, de Boniface, J, et al. Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 174: 795–805.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline34. Lanjewar, S, Patil, P, Fineberg, S. Pathologic reporting practices for breast cancer specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a survey of pathologists in academic institutions across the United States. Mod Pathol 2020; 33: 91–98.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline35. College of American Pathologists . Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. College of American Pathologists; 2018.
Google Scholar36. Lim, SK, Lee, MH, Park, IH, et al. Impact of molecular subtype conversion of breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on clinical outcome. Cancer Res Treat 2016; 48: 133–141.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline37. Tacca, O, Penault-Llorca, F, Abrial, C, et al. Changes in and prognostic value of hormone receptor status in a series of operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist 2007; 12: 636–643.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline38. Burstein, HJ, Curigliano, G, Loibl, S, et al. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1541–1557.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline39. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) : Breast Cancer: NCCN Guidelines with NCCN Evidence Blocks, Version 5.2020. NCCN; 2020.
Google Scholar40. Moo, TA, Edelweiss, M, Hajiyeva, S, et al. Is low-volume disease in the sentinel node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy an indication for axillary dissection? Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 1488–1494.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline41. Bossuyt, V, Spring, L. Pathologic evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy drives treatment changes and improves long-term outcomes for breast cancer patients. Breast J 2020; 26: 1189–1198.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline42. Amin, MB, Edge, SB, Greene, FL, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. Springer; 2017.
Google Scholar | Crossref43. Feldman, S, Krishnamurthy, S, Gillanders, W, et al. A novel automated assay for the rapid identification of metastatic breast carcinoma in sentinel lymph nodes. Cancer 2011; 117: 2599–2607.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline44. Mamounas, EP . Optimizing surgical management of the axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an evolving story. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 2124–2126.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline45. Comparison of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection With Axillary Radiation for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01901094
Google Scholar46. Symmans, WF, Wei, C, Gould, R, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 1049–1060.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline47. Sheri, A, Smith, IE, Johnston, SR, et al. Residual proliferative cancer burden to predict long-term outcome following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 75–80.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline48. Loibl, S, Marmé, F, Martin, M, et al. Palbociclib for residual high-risk invasive HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer: the Penelope-B trial. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39: 1518–1530.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline49. Tutt, ANJ, Garber, JE, Kaufman, B, et al. Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 2394–2405.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline50. Marmé, F, Stickeler, E, Furlanetto, J, et al. Phase III postneoadjuvant study evaluating sacituzumab govitecan, an antibody drug conjugate in primary HER2-negative breast cancer patients with high relapse risk after standard neoadjuvant treatment: SASCIA. J Clin Oncol 39 (15 suppl). Epub May 28, 2021. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.TPS602
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline51. Jeruss, JS, Mittendorf, EA, Tucker, SL, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 246–252.
Google Scholar