AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (371.9 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Original Article | Open Access

The choice of a neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle for breast cancer has significance in clinical practice: results from a population-based, real world study

Litong Yao1,*Zhiyuan Pang2,*Mozhi Wang1Mengshen Wang1Xiangyu Sun1Mingke Cui2Yanfu Zheng2Xinyan Li1Haoran Dong1Qiang Zhang2Yingying Xu1
Department of Breast Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China
Department of Breast Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute, Shenyang 110042, China

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Show Author Information

Abstract

Objective

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is currently used in both early stage and locally advanced breast cancers. The survival benefits of standard vs. non-standard NAC cycles are still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between NAC cycles and survival based on real world data.

Methods

We identified patients diagnosed with invasive primary breast cancers who underwent NAC followed by surgery. Patients who received at least 4 NAC cycles were defined as having received standard cycles, while patients who received less than 4 NAC cycles were defined as having received non-standard cycles. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Of the 1,024 included patients, 700 patients received standard NAC cycles and 324 patients received non-standard NAC cycles. The DFS estimates were 87.1% and 81.0% (P = 0.007) and the OS estimates were 90.0% and 82.6% (P = 0.001) in the standard and non-standard groups, respectively. Using multivariate analyses, patients treated with standard NAC cycles showed significant survival benefits in both DFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44–0.88] and OS (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.79). Using stratified analyses, standard NAC cycles were associated with improved DFS (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36–0.96) and OS (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.86) in the HER2 positive group. Similar DFS (HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.25–0.98) and OS (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.91) benefits were shown for the triple negative group.

Conclusions

Standard NAC cycles were associated with a significant survival benefit, especially in patients with HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Download File(s)
cbm-19-755-ESM.pdf (170.7 KB)

References

1

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 7-30.

2

de Mattos-Arruda L, Shen R, Reis-Filho JS, Cortés J. Translating neoadjuvant therapy into survival benefits: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016; 13: 566-79.

3

Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, Hortobagyi GN, Gianni L, von Minckwitz G, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 814-9.

4

von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, 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: 1796-804.

5

Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014; 384: 164-72.

6

Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, Im YH, Lee ES, Yokota I, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376: 2147-59.

7

von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, Loibl S, Mamounas EP, Untch M, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 617-28.

8

Gluz O, Nitz U, Liedtke C, Christgen M, Grischke EM, Forstbauer H, et al. Comparison of neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel+carboplatin vs. nab-paclitaxel+gemcitabine in triple-negative breast cancer: randomized WSG-ADAPT-TN trial results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018; 110: 628-37.

9

Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 778-85.

10

EBCTCG. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 27-39.

11

Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, Cameron D, Carey LA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19: 1508-16.

12

Vaidya JS, Massarut S, Vaidya HJ, Alexander EC, Richards T, Caris JA, et al. Rethinking neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. BMJ. 2018; 360: j5913.

13

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 228-47.

14

Steger GG, Galid A, Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Lang A, Tausch C, et al. Pathologic complete response with six compared with three cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in operable breast cancer: results of ABCSG-14. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 2012-8.

15

Norton L. Evolving concepts in the systemic drug therapy of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1997; 24: S10-3-S10-10.

16

Dembo AJ. Spontaneous mutation to chemotherapy resistance: implications of the goldie-coldman model for the management of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1984; 2: 1311-6.

17

Piccart-Gebhart MJ. Mathematics and oncology: a match for life? J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 1425-8.

18

Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus. conventionally scheduled and sequential versus. concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of intergroup trial C9741/cancer and leukemia group B trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 1431-9.

19

EBCTCG. Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2019; 393: 1440-52.

20

von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Eiermann W, et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3623-30.

Cancer Biology & Medicine
Pages 755-767
Cite this article:
Yao L, Pang Z, Wang M, et al. The choice of a neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle for breast cancer has significance in clinical practice: results from a population-based, real world study. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 2022, 19(5): 755-767. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0800

97

Views

2

Downloads

4

Crossref

4

Web of Science

4

Scopus

Altmetrics

Received: 26 December 2020
Accepted: 06 April 2021
Published: 24 June 2022
©2022 Cancer Biology & Medicine.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Return