Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Endocrine Therapy for Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast With High Hormone Receptor Positivity and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Negativity.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is an alternative to chemotherapy for strongly hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative breast cancer, evidence is currently lacking regarding the probable survival outcomes of NET in comparison with those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for this cancer.

Objective

To evaluate all-cause mortality among patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer treated with NET vs NACT.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study included patients with a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity, treated between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up from the index date (ie, date of IDC diagnosis) to December 31, 2018. The data came from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database. Data were analyzed from January to November 2020.

Exposures

NET vs NACT for IDC with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze all-cause mortality among patients undergoing different neoadjuvant treatments.

Results

A total of 640 patients (297 [46.4%] aged 20-49 years) undergoing NET (145 patients [22.7%]) or NACT (495 patients [77.3%]) were eligible for further analysis. In the multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality among the NET cohort compared with the NACT cohort was 2.67 (95% CI, 1.95-3.51; P < .001). The aHRs for age were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.03-2.24), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.17-3.49) for all-cause mortality among patients aged 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 years or older, respectively, compared with those aged 20 to 49 years (P = .002); the aHR for all-cause mortality among premenopausal women was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.13-1.56) compared with postmenopausal women (P < .001); and that of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or greater was 1.77 (1.37-2.26) compared with those with a score of 0 (P < .001). The aHRs of all-cause mortality for clinical tumor stage 2, 3, and 4 compared with 1 were 1.84 (95% CI, 1.07-3.40), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.03-3.77), and 2.49 (95% CI, 1.29-4.81), respectively (P = .009). The aHRs for all-cause mortality by clinical nodal (cN) stages were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.13-1.99) and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.31-2.61) for cN stage 1 and cN stages 2 or 3, respectively, compared with cN stage 0 (P = .005); those for differentiation were 1.77 (95% CI, 1.24-2.54) and 2.31 (95% CI, 1.61-3.34) for differentiation grade 2 and differentiation grade 3, respectively, compared with differentiation grade 1 (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this study suggest that for patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative IDC, NACT may be considered the first choice for neoadjuvant treatment.

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7955271 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is considered more effective in downstaging hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer than neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), particularly in node-positive disease. This study compared breast and axillary response and survival after NCT and NET in HR+ breast cancer.MethodsBased on American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1031 criteria, women age 50 years or older with cT2-4 HR+ breast cancer who underwent NET or NCT and surgery were identified in the National Cancer Database 2010-2016. Chi-square and logistic regression analysis determined differences between the NCT and NET groups and therapy response, including downstaging and pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is and ypN0).ResultsOf 19,829 patients, 14,025 (70.7%) received NCT and 5804 (29.3%) received NET. The NET patients were older (mean age, 68.9 vs. 60.3; P < 0.001) and had greater comorbidity (1+ Charlson-Deyo score, 21% vs. 16%; P < 0.001). Therapy achieved T downstaging (any) for 58% of the patients with NCT versus 40.5% of the patients with NET, and in-breast pCR was achieved for 9.3% of the NCT versus 1.3% of the NET patients (P < 0.001). Approximately half of the mastectomy procedures could have been potentially avoided for the patients with in-breast pCR (53.6% of the NCT and 43.8% of the NET patients). For the cN+ patients, N downstaging (any) was 29% for the NCT patients versus 18.3% for the NET patients (P < 0.001), and nodal pCR was achieved for 20.3% of the NCT versus 13.5% of the NET patients (P < 0.001). Among those with nodal pCR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) still was performed for 56% of the patients after NCT and 45% of the patients after NET.ConclusionsAlthough the response rates after NCT were higher, NET achieved both T and N downstaging and pCR. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy can be used to de-escalate surgery for patients who cannot tolerate NCT or when chemotherapy may not be effective based on genomic testing.

Project description:IntroductionHR+/HER2- breast cancer (BC) has a much lower pathological complete response (pCR) rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Therefore, to better stratify the relapse risk for HR+/HER2- non-pCR populations, it is essential to accurate identification new prognostic markers.Materials and methodsThe study retrospectively analyzed 105 stage II-III patients who were diagnosed with HR+/HER2- BC and received NAC followed by breast and axilla surgery between 2013 and 2019 in Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. The Miller-Payne (MP) grading system was used to evaluate pathological responses to NAC. The 70-gene signature was used to classify the prognosis signatures.ResultsAmong the 105 patients, the study demonstrated that larger tumor size and lower progesterone receptor level at baseline and larger tumor size postoperative were statistically significantly associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.004, p = 0.021, and p = 0.001, respectively). Among 54 patients who underwent the 70-gene assays, 26 (48.1%) had a low-risk signature; 28 (51.9%) patients had a high-risk signature. Patients with poor response (MP grades 1-2) were more likely to with a high-risk 70-gene signature than those with good response (MP grades 4-5). The final analysis showed that DFS was longer in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group [52.4 vs. 36.1 months of the median DFS, hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence, 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10-0.80; p = 0.018]. DFS was longer in the good response (MP grades 3-4) group than in the poor response (MP grades 1-2) group (94.7% vs. 60% of the patients free from recurrence; HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.47; p = 0.037). When stratified by MP grades combined with the 70-gene signature, subgroup analyses showed the good-response low-risk group with the best DFS, whereas the poor-response high-risk group showed the worst DFS (p = 0.048). Due to the short median follow-up time of 34.5 months (5.9-75.1 months), MP grades and the 70-gene signature did not show significant prognostic value for overall survival.ConclusionThe study showed that analysis of MP grades combined with the 70-gene signature with residual NAC-resistant breast samples has a significant correlation with DFS.

Project description:There is growing interest in the endocrine treatment (ET) of premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This review summarizes available data on endocrine therapy for this patient subset and aims to define the most appropriate treatment approach. The combination of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus tamoxifen seems effective and safe and is considered as being superior to either approach alone; still, single-agent therapy remains an acceptable treatment option. Due to their mechanism of action, aromatase inhibitors alone are not suitable for the treatment of premenopausal patients, but the combination with LHRH agonists may result in excellent disease control. Fulvestrant, in conjunction with LHRH agonists, also yields interesting results regarding clinical benefit rate and time to progression; currently, other orally available selective estrogen receptor downregulators are under clinical evaluation. Recently, targeted drugs have been added to ET in order to reverse endocrine resistance, but only limited information regarding their activity in premenopausal patients is available. The cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor palbociclib when combined with fulvestrant and LHRH agonists was shown to prolong progression-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in pretreated patients; similar results were obtained with the addition of abemacicilib or ribociclib to endocrine therapy. Currently, activity of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in combination with letrozole and goserelin is under assessment in premenopausal patients after progression on tamoxifen (MIRACLE trial). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This review provides clinicians with an overview on the available data regarding endocrine treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in premenopausal women and summarizes the treatment options available in routine clinical practice. Knowledge of an up-to-date therapeutic approach in women with premenopausal HR+ MBC will lead to better disease management, thereby improving disease control and quality of life while minimizing side effects.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The integration of residual cancer burden (RCB) and post-treatment Ki67 as residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) has been proposed as a stronger predictor of long-term outcome in unselected patients with breast cancer (BC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), as compared with RCB. However, no specific analysis in hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC is available so far. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A cohort of 130 patients with HR+/HER2- BC who underwent NACT between 2000 and 2014 was included. Archival surgical specimens were evaluated for RCB. RPCB was calculated by combining RCB and Ki67 as previously described. Patients were categorized in four RCB and RPCB categories (pathological complete response and tertiles). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Overall change of ?2 and c-indexes were used to compare the performance of the prognostic models. RESULTS:RPCB was calculated for 85 patients. After a median follow up of 8.5?years, RCB was associated with OS (p = .048) but not with DFS (p = .152); RPCB was instead significantly associated with both DFS and OS (p = .034 and p < .001, respectively). In terms of OS, RPCB provided a significant amount of prognostic information beyond RCB (??2 5.73, p < .001). In addition, c-index for OS prediction was significantly higher for RPCB as compared with RCB (0.79 vs. 0.61, p = .03). CONCLUSION:This is the first study evaluating RPCB in patients with HR+/HER2- BC treated with NACT. In this independent cohort, RPCB was a strong predictor of DFS and OS. The better performance of RPCB versus RCB was in part due to the ability of RPCB to discriminate a subgroup of patients with a particularly worse prognosis after NACT, who may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating novel adjuvant strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The present work validated residual proliferative cancer burden (RPCB) as a strong predictor of long-term outcome in patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, results from the present study suggest RPCB as a promising tool to identify patients with HR+/HER2- BC who might potentially benefit from the inclusion in clinical trials evaluating novel or escalated postneoadjuvant treatment strategies because it allowed to discriminate a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis despite having received subsequent endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.