Dataset Information

Locoregional therapy in de novo metastatic breast cancer: Systemic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Locoregional therapy (LRT) in de novo metastatic disease is controversial with inconsistent results from randomized control trials (RCTs).

Methods

RCTs comparing LRT and systemic therapy to standard therapy alone in de novo metastatic breast cancer were identified. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed and pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance. Overall survival (OS) and time to locoregional progression data were extracted for the intention to treat (ITT) population. Data on OS for pre-specified subgroups defined by tumor subtype and by site of metastases were also extracted.

Results

Analyses included 4 trials comprising 970 patients. LRT included standard surgery to the primary breast tumor in all studies, and adjuvant radiation per standard of care was required in 3 studies. Compared to standard treatment, LRT was not associated with improved OS in the ITT population (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.29, p = 0.81). However, LRT was associated with improved time to locoregional progression (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.95, p = 0.04). LRT was not associated with improved OS in any tumor subtypes, including hormone receptor positive (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.43), triple negative (HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.50-3.91) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.28). Additionally, LRT did not improve OS in bone only disease (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58-1.62) and in visceral disease (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.35). Our critical appraisal has identified some methodological problems in the design and conduct of the studies included that could affect the meta-analysis result.

Conclusions

LRT in de novo metastatic breast cancer is not associated with improved OS. Results are consistent among different breast cancer subgroups. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution in view of the limitations identified in meta-analysis.

SUBMITTER: Reinhorn D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systemic therapy has been viewed as the mainstay for de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC). However, as dnMBC is highly heterogeneous both biologically and clinically, and with ever-improving systemic strategies, it has been implied that the local therapy of the primary tumor (PT) may be beneficial for certain patients with dnMBC. However, the results from retrospective studies have been questioned due to their selection bias and retrospective nature. To the best of our knowledge, there are two published randomized clinical trials addressing this issue with conflicting conclusions: i) TATA study from India indicated no overall survival (OS) superiority with early local radiotherapy (LRT); and ii) MF07-01 indicated a 5-year OS rate improvement of 17% with upfront LRT. The updated results of a randomized phase III ECOG-ACRIN E2108 trial released in the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting reported a negative survival effect of early LRT treatment in patients with dnMBC responding to initial systemic treatment, despite LRT significantly reducing the locoregional failure. Thus, a number of issues, such as the exact value of LRT, the optimal means of LRT (surgery and/or RT to the PT), the ideal timing of LRT and the population most likely to benefit from LRT, warrant further investigation. Herein, the related studies focusing on these aspects were comprehensively reviewed and a decision algorithm was proposed to select suitable patients with dnMBC for reasonable LRT. Generally, upfront systemic therapy is recommended. For good respondents and a subgroup of favorable profiles (young age, good general condition, low tumor burden, hormone receptor-positive and so on), radical LRT including PT surgery followed by RT and the resection of distant metastases is recommended. LRT should also be administered if the PT is still symptomatic. LRT may benefit patients with dnMBC due to the following reasons: Control of the PT decreases tumor burden, eliminates the source of dissemination, enhances the sensitivity to therapy and exerts positive immunomodulation. Therefore, the treatment paradigm for dnMBC may change from 'palliative LRT' into 'curative LRT' in a highly selected entity with careful evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a significant survival difference and lack of effective treatment among breast cancer patients with liver metastasis. This present study aimed to construct a novel prognostic score for predicting the prognosis and locoregional treatment benefit of de novo metastatic breast cancer with liver metastasis (BCLM).MethodsIn total, 2,398 eligible patients between 2010 and 2016 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. They were assigned to the training set including 1,662 patients (2010-2014) and validation set comprising 736 patients (2015-2016) depending on the time of diagnosis. The prognostic score was based on regression coefficients in the multivariate Cox regression analysis. And then, patients were stratified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups by the prognostic score. The discrimination and calibration of prognostic score were evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves analysis and calibration curves, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate locoregional surgery and chemotherapy benefit in different risk groups.ResultsAge, race, insurance and marital status, T stage, pathological grade, molecular subtypes, and extrahepatic metastasis were identified as independent prognostic variables in the prognostic score. The prognostic score showed high discrimination power with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 and 0.72 and excellent agreement suggested by calibration plots in the training and validation sets, respectively. Intermediate-risk [hazard ratio (HR) 2.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.09-2.73, P<0.001] and high-risk groups (HR 4.88; 95% CI 4.13-5.76; P<0.001) had significantly worse prognosis in comparison with the low-risk group. The median overall survival (OS) in three prognostic groups were 44, 18, and 7 months, with a 3-year survival rate of 56, 23, and 7%, respectively. Apart from the high-risk group (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.56-1.10; P=0.157), the low-risk (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.84; P=0.001) and intermediate-risk groups (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.85; P=0.001) could benefit from the surgery of primary site, while chemotherapy improved prognosis in all risk groups.ConclusionsA prognostic score was developed to accurately predict the prognosis of de novo BCLM patients. Moreover, it may be useful for further subdividing them into different risk groups and helping guide clinicians in treatment decisions.

Project description:We aimed to determine the prognostic impact of time between primary breast cancer and diagnosis of distant metastasis (metastatic-free interval, MFI) on the survival of metastatic breast cancer patients.Consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2007-2009 in eight hospitals in the Southeast of the Netherlands were included and categorised based on MFI. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of de novo metastatic breast cancer vs recurrent metastatic breast cancer (MFI ⩽24 months and >24 months), adjusted for age, hormone receptor and HER2 status, initial site of metastasis and use of prior (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy.Eight hundred and fifteen patients were included and divided in three subgroups based on MFI; 154 patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer, 176 patients with MFI <24 months and 485 patients with MFI >24 months. Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a prolonged survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI <24 months (median 29.4 vs 9.1 months, P<0.0001), but no difference in survival compared with patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months (median, 29.4 vs 27.9 months, P=0.73). Adjusting for other prognostic factors, patients with MFI <24 months had increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.49-2.60, P<0.0001) compared with patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer. When comparing recurrent metastatic breast cancer with MFI >24 months with de novo metastatic breast cancer no significant difference in mortality risk was found. The association between MFI and survival was seen irrespective of use of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy.Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had a significantly better outcome when compared with patients with MFI <24 months, irrespective of the use of prior adjuvant systemic therapy in the latter group. However, compared with patients with MFI >24 months, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer had similar outcome.