Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database

English version

Autoři: Nusayba A. Bagegni ^aff001; Yu Tao ^aff001; Foluso O. Ademuyiwa ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America ^aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222358

Souhrn

Purpose

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients frequently receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Only 50% will achieve pathological complete response (pCR). In this retrospective study, we evaluated TNBC outcomes with NAC vs. AC.

Methods

Patients with stages II and III TNBC treated with NAC or AC between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Baseline characteristics were compared with χ2 and two sample t tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were computed in patients treated with NAC or AC, and log-rank tests used to examine differences. Unadjusted analyses of trends in proportions over time were performed using Cochran–Armitage tests. Log-binomial models were applied to estimate relative risks of non-pCR following NAC.

Results

Of 19,151 patients, 5,621 (29.4%) received NAC, 13,530 (70.6%) received AC. NAC treated patients had worse OS compared to AC treated patients (73.4% vs. 76.8%; p<0.0001). pCR rate following NAC was 47.4%, and was associated with improved 5 year OS compared to non-pCR (86.2% vs. 62.3%; p<0.0001). In patients who received NAC, age, black race, clinical stage, diagnosis year, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score predicted non-pCR status. Use of NAC increased over the study period from 2010 to 2013 (27.8% - 31.2%; p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

NAC may be inferior to AC in TNBC, likely related to the high frequency of non-pCR following NAC. It is unclear if removing the primary tumor prior to chemotherapy will have a beneficial biologic impact on therapeutic efficacy. These data should be considered hypothesis-generating as it is possible that the findings are due to selection bias, as physicians may use NAC for TNBC patients with more advanced local disease. Although, NAC still has a role in TNBC, developing biomarkers to identify patients likely to achieve pCR and benefit from NAC is an urgent need.

Klíčová slova:

Engineering and technology – Medicine and health sciences – Diagnostic medicine – Clinical medicine – Pharmaceutics – Drug therapy – Oncology – Cancer treatment – Cancers and neoplasms – Cancer detection and diagnosis – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Cancer chemotherapy – Clinical oncology – Chemotherapy – Management engineering – Risk management – Insurance – Breast tumors – Breast cancer – Adjuvant chemotherapy

Zdroje

1. Surveillance E, and End Results (SEER). Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer 2018 [cited 2018 September 13, 2018].

2. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(19):10869–74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.191367098 11553815; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC58566.

3. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52. doi: 10.1038/35021093 10963602.

4. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15 Pt 1):4429–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045 17671126.

5. Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. Features of triple-negative breast cancer: Analysis of 38,813 cases from the national cancer database. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(35):e4614. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004614 27583878; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5008562.

6. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492–502. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492 16757721.

7. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109 17438091.

8. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(7):2483–93. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.7.2483 9215816.

9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative G. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):27–39. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30777-5 29242041; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5757427.

10. Kennedy CR, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2010;163(1):52–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.015 20599225.

11. Fisher CS, Ma CX, Gillanders WE, Aft RL, Eberlein TJ, Gao F, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival compared with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer only after complete pathologic response. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19(1):253–8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1877-y 21725686.

12. 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(9938):164–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 24529560.

13. Chen VE, Gillespie EF, Zakeri K, Murphy JD, Yashar CM, Lu S, et al. Pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts locoregional control in patients with triple negative breast cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2(2):105–9. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2017.01.012 28740920; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5514240.

14. Kuroi K, Toi M, Ohno S, Nakamura S, Iwata H, Masuda N, et al. Prognostic significance of subtype and pathologic response in operable breast cancer; a pooled analysis of prospective neoadjuvant studies of JBCRG. Breast Cancer. 2015;22(5):486–95. doi: 10.1007/s12282-013-0511-1 24338638.

15. Mougalian SS, Soulos PR, Killelea BK, Lannin DR, Abu-Khalaf MM, DiGiovanna MP, et al. Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage I to III breast cancer in the United States. Cancer. 2015;121(15):2544–52. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29348 25902916.

16. Murphy BL, Day CN, Hoskin TL, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Use in Breast Cancer is Greatest in Excellent Responders: Triple-Negative and HER2+ Subtypes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(8):2241–8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6531-5 29786125.

17. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(22):4224–37. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.22.4224 11709566.

18. Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, Durand M, Floquet A, Debled M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: A unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Ann Oncol. 1999;10(1):47–52. doi: 10.1023/a:1008337009350 PubMed PMID: WOS:000078994200017. 10076721

19. Clifton K, Gutierrez-Barrera A, Ma J, Bassett R Jr., Litton J, Kuerer H, et al. Adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(1):101–9. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4727-9 29470805; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5994186.

20. 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(15):1796–804. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595 22508812.

21. Kern P, Von Minckwitz G, Puetter C, Pavlidou S, Flach A, Kimmig R, et al. Prognostic Impact of Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in 648 Patients with Triple-negative Breast Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(10):5479–84. 26408712.

22. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147 18250347.

23. Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou C, Singh B, Cirrincione CT, Tolaney S, et al. Event-free and overall survival following neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel and dose-dense AC /- carboplatin and/or bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer: Outcomes from CALGB 40603 (Alliance). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; San Antonio: Cancer Research; 2016.

24. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, Yu X, Zhang Y, Liu M, et al. Long-Term Prognostic Risk After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Associated With Residual Cancer Burden and Breast Cancer Subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010 28135148; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5455352.

25. Puig CA, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. National Trends in the Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hormone Receptor-Negative Breast Cancer: A National Cancer Data Base Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(5):1242–50. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5733-y 28000076.

26. Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Breast Cancer 2018 [cited 2019 September 13, 2018].

27. Daly B, Olopade OI, Hou N, Yao K, Winchester DJ, Huo D. Evaluation of the Quality of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Delivery for Breast Cancer Care in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(7):928–35. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6380 28152150; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5824237.

28. 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(22):2147–59. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 28564564.

29. Caramelo O, Silva C, Caramelo F, Frutuoso C, Almeida-Santos T. The effect of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in BRCA mutated triple negative breast cancers -systematic review and meta-analysis. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2019;17:11. doi: 10.1186/s13053-019-0111-y 30962858; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6434625.

30. Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, et al. Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450 28578601.

31. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Goncalves A, Lee KH, et al. Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):753–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905 30110579.

32. Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Differential Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Among 7 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes. Clinical Cancer Research. 2013;19(19):5533–40. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0799 PubMed PMID: WOS:000325203700030. 23948975

33. Lehmann BD, Jovanovic B, Chen X, Estrada MV, Johnson KN, Shyr Y, et al. Refinement of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes: Implications for Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Selection. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157368 27310713; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4911051.