PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is defined by the lack of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression. In this study, we compared response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival between patients with TNBC and non-TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of a prospectively collected clinical database was performed. We included 1,118 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for stage I-III breast cancer from 1985 to 2004 and for whom complete receptor information were available. Clinical and pathologic parameters, pathologic complete response rates (pCR), survival measurements, and organ-specific relapse rates were compared between patients with TNBC and non-TNBC. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients (23%) had TNBC. Patients with TNBC compared with non-TNBC had significantly higher pCR rates (22% v 11%; P = .034), but decreased 3-year progression-free survival rates (P < .0001) and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates (P < .0001). TNBC was associated with increased risk for visceral metastases (P = .0005), lower risk for bone recurrence (P = .027), and shorter postrecurrence survival (P < .0001). Recurrence and death rates were higher for TNBC only in the first 3 years. If pCR was achieved, patients with TNBC and non-TNBC had similar survival (P = .24). In contrast, patients with residual disease (RD) had worse OS if they had TNBC compared with non-TNBC (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with TNBC have increased pCR rates compared with non-TNBC, and those with pCR have excellent survival. However, patients with RD after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have significantly worse survival if they have TNBC compared with non-TNBC, particularly in the first 3 years.
PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is defined by the lack of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression. In this study, we compared response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival between patients with TNBC and non-TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of a prospectively collected clinical database was performed. We included 1,118 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for stage I-III breast cancer from 1985 to 2004 and for whom complete receptor information were available. Clinical and pathologic parameters, pathologic complete response rates (pCR), survival measurements, and organ-specific relapse rates were compared between patients with TNBC and non-TNBC. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients (23%) had TNBC. Patients with TNBC compared with non-TNBC had significantly higher pCR rates (22% v 11%; P = .034), but decreased 3-year progression-free survival rates (P < .0001) and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates (P < .0001). TNBC was associated with increased risk for visceral metastases (P = .0005), lower risk for bone recurrence (P = .027), and shorter postrecurrence survival (P < .0001). Recurrence and death rates were higher for TNBC only in the first 3 years. If pCR was achieved, patients with TNBC and non-TNBC had similar survival (P = .24). In contrast, patients with residual disease (RD) had worse OS if they had TNBC compared with non-TNBC (P < .0001). CONCLUSION:Patients with TNBC have increased pCR rates compared with non-TNBC, and those with pCR have excellent survival. However, patients with RD after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have significantly worse survival if they have TNBC compared with non-TNBC, particularly in the first 3 years.
Authors: Casey W Shuptrine; Reham Ajina; Elana J Fertig; Sandra A Jablonski; H Kim Lyerly; Zachary C Hartman; Louis M Weiner Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Xinrong Guo; Sibylle Loibl; Michael Untch; Volker Möbus; Kathrin Schwedler; Peter A Fasching; Jana Barinoff; Frank Holms; Christoph Thomssen; Dirk M Zahm; Rolf Kreienberg; Maik Hauschild; Holger Eidtmann; Sascha Tauchert; Keyur Mehta; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Carolyn S Hall; Jessica Bowman Bauldry; Mandar Karhade; Lily M Valad; Henry M Kuerer; Sarah M DeSnyder; Carlos H Barcenas; Anthony Lucci Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Armando M Marrufo; Stephen O Mathew; Pankaj Chaudhary; Joseph D Malaer; Jamboor K Vishwanatha; Porunelloor A Mathew Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Valerie N Barton; Jessica L Christenson; Michael A Gordon; Lisa I Greene; Thomas J Rogers; Kiel Butterfield; Beatrice Babbs; Nicole S Spoelstra; Nicholas C D'Amato; Anthony Elias; Jennifer K Richer Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: K Kyono; T Hashimoto; M Toya; M Koizumi; C Sasaki; S Shibasaki; N Aono; Y Nakamura; R Obata; N Okuyama; Y Ogura; H Igarashi Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 3.412