Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for patients with stage 0, I, and IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving treatment was compared with whole-breast irradiation. Here, we present 5-year follow-up results. We did a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial at 16 hospitals and medical centres in seven European countries. 1184 patients with low-risk invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery were centrally randomised to either whole-breast irradiation or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy. The primary endpoint was local recurrence. Analysis was done according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, 551 patients had whole-breast irradiation with tumour-bed boost and 633 patients received APBI using interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy. At 5-year follow-up, nine patients treated with APBI and five patients receiving whole-breast irradiation had a local recurrence; the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 1·44% (95% CI 0·51–2·38) with APBI and 0·92% (0·12–1·73) with whole-breast irradiation (difference 0·52%, 95% CI −0·72 to 1·75; p=0·42). No grade 4 late side-effects were reported. The 5-year risk of grade 2–3 late side-effects to the skin was 3·2% with APBI versus 5·7% with whole-breast irradiation (p=0·08), and 5-year risk of grade 2–3 subcutaneous tissue late side-effects was 7·6% versus 6·3% (p=0·53). The risk of severe (grade 3) fibrosis at 5 years was 0·2% with whole-breast irradiation and 0% with APBI (p=0·46). The difference between treatments was below the relevance margin of 3 percentage points. Therefore, adjuvant APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy after breast-conserving surgery in patients with early breast cancer is not inferior to adjuvant whole-breast irradiation with respect to 5-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival. German Cancer Aid.

We previously confirmed the non-inferiority of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with interstitial brachytherapy in terms of local control and overall survival compared with whole-breast irradiation for patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery in a phase 3 randomised trial. Here, we present the 5-year late side-effects and cosmetic results of the trial. We did this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial at 16 centres in seven European countries. Women aged 40 years or older with stage 0–IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery with microscopically clear resection margins of at least 2 mm were randomly assigned 1:1, via an online interface, to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a tumour-bed boost of 10 Gy or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, menopausal status, and tumour type (invasive carcinoma vs ductal carcinoma in situ), with a block size of ten, according to an automated dynamic algorithm. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of our initial analysis was ipsilateral local recurrence; here, we report the secondary endpoints of late side-effects and cosmesis. We analysed physician-scored late toxicities and patient-scored and physician-scored cosmetic results from the date of breast-conserving surgery to the date of onset of event. Analysis was done according to treatment received (as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, we randomly assigned 1328 women to receive either whole-breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy (n=655); 1184 patients comprised the as-treated population (551 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group). At a median follow-up of 6·6 years (IQR 5·8–7·6), no patients had any grade 4 toxities, and three (<1%) of 484 patients in the APBI group and seven (2%) of 393 in the whole-breast irradiation group had grade 3 late skin toxicity (p=0·16). No patients in the APBI group and two (<1%) in the whole-breast irradiation group developed grade 3 late subcutaneous tissue toxicity (p=0·10). The cumulative incidence of any late side-effect of grade 2 or worse at 5 years was 27·0% (95% CI 23·0–30·9) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 23·3% (19·9–26·8) in the APBI group (p=0·12). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 late skin toxicity at 5 years was 10·7% (95% CI 8·0–13·4) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 6·9% (4·8–9·0) in the APBI group (difference −3·8%, 95% CI −7·2 to 0·4; p=0·020). The cumulative risk of grade 2–3 late subcutaneous tissue side-effects at 5 years was 9·7% (95% CI 7·1–12·3) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 12·0% (9·4–14·7) in the APBI group (difference 2·4%; 95% CI −1·4 to 6·1; p=0·28). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 breast pain was 11·9% (95% CI 9·0–14·7) after whole-breast irradiation versus 8·4% (6·1–10·6) after APBI (difference −3·5%; 95% CI −7·1 to 0·1; p=0·074). At 5 years' follow-up, according to the patients' view, 413 (91%) of 454 patients had excellent to good cosmetic results in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 498 (92%) of 541 patients in the APBI group (p=0·62); when judged by the physicians, 408 (90%) of 454 patients and 503 (93%) of 542 patients, respectively, had excellent to good cosmetic results (p=0·12). No treatment-related deaths occurred, but six (15%) of 41 patients (three in each group) died from breast cancer, and 35 (85%) deaths (21 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 in the APBI group) were unrelated. 5-year toxicity profiles and cosmetic results were similar in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by either APBI with interstitial brachytherapy or conventional whole-breast irradiation, with significantly fewer grade 2–3 late skin side-effects after APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. These findings provide further clinical evidence for the routine use of interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy-based APBI in the treatment of patients with low-risk breast cancer who opt for breast conservation. German Cancer Aid.

BackgroundThe MF07-01 trial is a multicenter, phase III, randomized, controlled study comparing locoregional treatment (LRT) followed by systemic therapy (ST) with ST alone for treatment-naïve stage IV breast cancer (BC) patients.MethodsAt initial diagnosis, patients were randomized 1:1 to either the LRT or ST group. All the patients were given ST either immediately after randomization or after surgical resection of the intact primary tumor.ResultsThe trial enrolled 274 patients: 138 in the LRT group and 136 in the ST group. Hazard of death was 34% lower in the LRT group than in the ST group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–0.88; p = 0.005). Unplanned subgroup analyses showed that the risk of death was statistically lower in the LRT group than in the ST group with respect to estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR)(+) (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46–0.91; p = 0.01), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)/neu(–) (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45–0.91; p = 0.01), patients younger than 55 years (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38–0.86; p = 0.007), and patients with solitary bone-only metastases (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.98; p = 0.04).ConclusionIn the current trial, improvement in 36-month survival was not observed with upfront surgery for stage IV breast cancer patients. However, a longer follow-up study (median, 40 months) showed statistically significant improvement in median survival. When locoregional treatment in de novo stage IV BC is discussed with the patient as an option, practitioners must consider age, performance status, comorbidities, tumor type, and metastatic disease burden.

To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. Between 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6–11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1–7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39–0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

The optimum timing of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain. The SENTINA (SENTinel NeoAdjuvant) study was designed to evaluate a specific algorithm for timing of a standardised sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. SENTINA is a four-arm, prospective, multicentre cohort study undertaken at 103 institutions in Germany and Austria. Women with breast cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled into the study. Patients with clinically node-negative disease (cN0) underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm A). If the sentinel node was positive (pN1), a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure was done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Women with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those who converted to clinically node-negative disease after chemotherapy (ycN0; arm C) were treated with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection. Only patients whose clinical nodal status remained positive (ycN1) underwent axillary dissection without sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (arm D). The primary endpoint was accuracy (false-negative rate) of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients who converted from cN1 to ycN0 disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm C). Secondary endpoints included comparison of the detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and also the false-negative rate and detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after removal of the sentinel lymph node. Analyses were done according to treatment received (per protocol). Of 1737 patients who received treatment, 1022 women underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arms A and B), with a detection rate of 99·1% (95% CI 98·3–99·6; 1013 of 1022). In patients who converted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from cN+ to ycN0 (arm C), the detection rate was 80·1% (95% CI 76·6–83·2; 474 of 592) and false-negative rate was 14·2% (95% CI 9·9–19·4; 32 of 226). The false-negative rate was 24·3% (17 of 70) for women who had one node removed and 18·5% (10 of 54) for those who had two sentinel nodes removed (arm C). In patients who had a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B), the detection rate was 60·8% (95% CI 55·6–65·9; 219 of 360) and the false-negative rate was 51·6% (95% CI 38·7–64·2; 33 of 64). Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic method before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After systemic treatment or early sentinel-lymph-node biopsy, the procedure has a lower detection rate and a higher false-negative rate compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy done before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These limitations should be considered if biopsy is planned after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Brustkrebs Deutschland, German Society for Senology, German Breast Group.

In hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early stage breast cancer, cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibition in combination with endocrine therapy could represent an alternative to multiagent chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the biological and clinical activity of neoadjuvant ribociclib plus letrozole in the luminal B subtype of early stage breast cancer. CORALLEEN is a parallel-arm, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial completed across 21 hospitals in Spain. We recruited postmenopausal women (≥18 years) with stage I–IIIA hormone receptor-positive, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0–1, HER2-negative breast cancer and luminal B by PAM50 with histologically confirmed, operable primary tumour size of at least 2 cm in diameter as measured by MRI. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based system and permuted blocks of 25 to receive either six 28-days cycles of ribociclib (oral 600 mg once daily for 3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus daily letrozole (oral 2·5 mg/day) or four cycles of doxorubicin (intravenous 60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (intravenous 600 mg/m2) every 21 days followed by weekly paclitaxel (intravenous 80 mg/m2) for 12 weeks. The total duration of the neoadjuvant therapy was 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by tumour size and nodal involvement. Samples were prospectively collected at baseline (day 0), day 15, and surgery. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients with PAM50 low-risk-of-relapse (ROR) disease at surgery in the modified intention-to-treat population including all randomly assigned patients who received study drug and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline measurement of ROR score. The PAM50 ROR risk class integrated gene expression data, tumour size, and nodal status to define prognosis. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03248427. Between July 27, 2017 to Dec 7, 2018, 106 patients were enrolled. At baseline, of the 106 patients, 92 (87%) patients had high ROR disease (44 [85%] of 52 in the ribociclib and letrozole group and 48 [89%] of 54 in the chemotherapy group) and 14 (13%) patients had intermediate-ROR disease (eight [15%] and six [11%]). Median follow-up was 200·0 days (IQR 191·2–206·0). At surgery, 23 (46·9%; 95% CI 32·5–61·7) of 49 patients in the ribociclib plus letrozole group and 24 (46·1%; 32·9–61·5) of 52 patients in the chemotherapy group were low-ROR. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the ribociclib plus letrozole group were neutropenia (22 [43%] of 51 patients) and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations (ten [20%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the chemotherapy group were neutropenia (31 [60%] of 52 patients) and febrile neutropenia (seven [13%]). No deaths were observed during the study in either group. Our results suggest that some patients with high-risk, early stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer could achieve molecular downstaging of their disease with CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. Novartis, Nanostring, Breast Cancer Research Foundation-AACR Career Development Award.

BackgroundRecent trials have suggested the feasibility of performing a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The selection of suitable patients for this approach remains controversial. We developed a predictive model to identify patients most likely to benefit from SNB following NAC.MethodsThe National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients with clinically node positive (cN+) breast cancer undergoing NAC followed by breast surgery and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Patients were randomly assigned to a 70% testing or 30% validation cohort for model development. A predictive model was built based on significant factors associated with pathologic nodal response (pN0) and breast response.ResultsUsing the testing cohort (n = 13,396), multivariate regression was used to identify predictors of pN0 based on preoperative factors. Younger age, hormone receptor (HR)-negative/Her2-negative, HR-positive/Her2-positive, HR-negative/Her2-positive, high-grade, ductal histology, cN1 versus cN2, and extent of breast response were all significant independent predictors of pN0 on adjusted analysis. The odds ratios translated into a 10-point scale correlating to a stepwise increase in pN0 response. The area under the curve for the ROC curves for the testing and validation cohorts was 0.781 and 0.788, respectively (p < 0.01).ConclusionsOur model incorporates known preoperative factors to predict the likelihood of pN0 response in patients with cN+ disease who undergo NAC. For patients with high scores, SNB should be considered over ALND, because these patients have a greater likelihood of having negative nodes at final pathology.

Whole breast irradiation delivered once per day over 3–5 weeks after breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence with good cosmetic results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) delivered over 1 week to the tumour bed was developed to provide a more convenient treatment. In this trial, we investigated if external beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation. We did this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial in 33 cancer centres in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Women aged 40 years or older with ductal carcinoma in situ or node-negative breast cancer treated by breast conserving surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either external beam APBI (38·5 Gy in ten fractions delivered twice per day over 5–8 days) or whole breast irradiation (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions once per day over 21 days, or 50 Gy in 25 fractions once per day over 35 days). Patients and clinicans were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR), analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed on the basis of an expected 5 year IBTR rate of 1·5% in the whole breast irradiation group with 85% power to exclude a 1·5% increase in the APBI group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% CI for the IBTR hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2·02. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00282035. Between Feb 7, 2006, and July 15, 2011, we enrolled 2135 women. 1070 were randomly assigned to receive APBI and 1065 were assigned to receive whole breast irradiation. Six patients in the APBI group withdrew before treatment, four more did not receive radiotherapy, and 16 patients received whole breast irradiation. In the whole breast irradiation group, 16 patients withdrew, and two more did not receive radiotherapy. In the APBI group, a further 14 patients were lost to follow-up and nine patients withdrew during the follow-up period. In the whole breast irradiation group, 20 patients were lost to follow-up and 35 withdrew during follow-up. Median follow-up was 8·6 years (IQR 7·3–9·9). The 8-year cumulative rates of IBTR were 3·0% (95% CI 1·9–4·0) in the APBI group and 2·8% (1·8–3·9) in the whole breast irradiation group. The HR for APBI versus whole breast radiation was 1·27 (90% CI 0·84–1·91). Acute radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, within 3 months of radiotherapy start) occurred less frequently in patients treated with APBI (300 [28%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (484 [45%] of 1065 patients, p<0·0001). Late radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, later than 3 months) was more common in patients treated with APBI (346 [32%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (142 [13%] of 1065 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse cosmesis (defined as fair or poor) was more common in patients treated with APBI than in those treated by whole breast irradiation at 3 years (absolute difference, 11·3%, 95% CI 7·5–15·0), 5 years (16·5%, 12·5–20·4), and 7 years (17·7%, 12·9–22·3). External beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation in preventing IBTR. Although less acute toxicity was observed, the regimen used was associated with an increase in moderate late toxicity and adverse cosmesis, which might be related to the twice per day treatment. Other approaches, such as treatment once per day, might not adversely affect cosmesis and should be studied. Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance.

Background Proliferation may predict response to neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer and is commonly assessed by manual scoring of slides stained by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for Ki-67 similar to ER and PgR. This method carries significant intra- and inter-observer variability. Automatic scoring of Ki-67 with digital image analysis (qIHC) or assessment of MKI67 gene expression with RT-qPCR may improve diagnostic accuracy. Methods Ki-67 IHC visual assessment was compared to the IHC nuclear tool (AperioTM) on core biopsies from a randomized neoadjuvant clinical trial. Expression of ESR1, PGR and MKI67 by RT-qPCR was performed on RNA extracted from the same formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Concordance between the three methods (vIHC, qIHC and RT-qPCR) was assessed for all 3 markers. The potential of Ki-67 IHC and RT-qPCR to predict pathological complete response (pCR) was evaluated using ROC analysis and non-parametric Mann-Whitney Test. Results Correlation between methods (qIHC versus RT-qPCR) was high for ER and PgR (spearman´s r  = 0.82, p  < 0.0001 and r  = 0.86, p  < 0.0001, respectively) resulting in high levels of concordance using predefined cut-offs. When comparing qIHC of ER and PgR with RT-qPCR of ESR1 and PGR the overall agreement was 96.6 and 91.4%, respectively, while overall agreement of visual IHC with RT-qPCR was slightly lower for ER/ESR1 and PR/PGR (91.2 and 92.9%, respectively). In contrast, only a moderate correlation was observed between qIHC and RT-qPCR continuous data for Ki-67/MKI67 (Spearman’s r  = 0.50, p  = 0.0001). Up to now no predictive cut-off for Ki-67 assessment by IHC has been established to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Setting the desired sensitivity at 100%, specificity for the prediction of pCR (ypT0ypN0) was significantly higher for mRNA than for protein (68.9% vs. 22.2%). Moreover, the proliferation levels in patients achieving a pCR versus not differed significantly using MKI67 RNA expression (Mann-Whitney p  = 0.002), but not with qIHC of Ki-67 (Mann-Whitney p  = 0.097) or vIHC of Ki-67 ( p  = 0.131). Conclusion Digital image analysis can successfully be implemented for assessing ER, PR and Ki-67. IHC for ER and PR reveals high concordance with RT-qPCR. However, RT-qPCR displays a broader dynamic range and higher sensitivity than IHC. Moreover, correlation between Ki-67 qIHC and RT-qPCR is only moderate and RT-qPCR with MammaTyper® outperforms qIHC in predicting pCR. Both methods yield improvements to error-prone manual scoring of Ki-67. However, RT-qPCR was significantly more specific.