Literature DB >> 22015282

Lessons from the neoadjuvant setting on how best to choose adjuvant therapies.

Gunter von Minckwitz1, Sibylle Loibl, Andrea Maisch, Michael Untch.   

Abstract

AIMS: To review the recent literature on neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer with respect to insights that might be used for better using systemic treatment in early breast cancer.
RESULTS: Much more insight was gained during recent years on how to use information on pathologic complete response (pCR). pCR appears to be a valid surrogate for long-term survival mainly in triple-negative and HER2-positive disease. Patient with breast cancer of these subtypes can be relieved from poor prognosis if they achieve a pCR after neoadjuvant treatment. It can even be speculated that the extent of local and post-surgical systemic treatment can be further reduced. Patients without pCR show a high risk of early recurrence and are at high need for new treatment options. These advantages lead to the recommendation that use of neoadjuvant treatment should not be indicated by tumor size but far more by tumor subtype. As pCR appears to be more sensitive to detect treatment effects than disease-free survival, the neoadjuvant approach identifies easier promising treatments and can even discriminate optimal approaches for biologically defined subgroups. A recent meta-analysis examining pattern of neoadjuvant chemotherapy suggests that luminal-B type tumors require longer duration of treatment, triple-negative tumors require dose-intensified anthracycline-taxane-based treatment of only short duration, and HER2-positive tumors require longer duration (if hormone-receptor positive) and an optimal dose of taxanes. As biomarkers can be easily assessed on tumor tissue before, during, and after treatment, there is increasing data available on markers that e.g. potentially predict resistance to anti-HER2 treatment, predict response to anti-angiogenic drugs as well as efficacy of PARP inhibitors. Validation of these candidate markers remains a challenging task, as patients cohort are usually small and finding studies are compromised by multiple testing.
CONCLUSION: With the acquired new knowledge from neoadjuvant studies will help to individualize treatment based on biological behavior of breast cancer subtypes.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22015282     DOI: 10.1016/S0960-9776(11)70312-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  9 in total

1.  Gene expression and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Agnieszka Kolacinska; Wojciech Fendler; Janusz Szemraj; Bozena Szymanska; Ewa Borowska-Garganisz; Magdalena Nowik; Justyna Chalubinska; Robert Kubiak; Zofia Pawlowska; Maria Blasinska-Morawiec; Piotr Potemski; Arkadiusz Jeziorski; Zbigniew Morawiec
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 2.316

2.  Predictive and prognostic factors in locally advanced breast cancer: effect of intratumoral FOXP3+ Tregs.

Authors:  Lutfiye Demir; Seyran Yigit; Hulya Ellidokuz; Cigdem Erten; Isil Somali; Yuksel Kucukzeybek; Ahmet Alacacioglu; Suna Cokmert; Alper Can; Murat Akyol; Ahmet Dirican; Vedat Bayoglu; Aysegul Akder Sari; Mustafa Oktay Tarhan
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 5.150

3.  Perspective on the interpretation of research and translation to clinical care with therapy-associated metastatic breast cancer progression as an example.

Authors:  Barbara Fingleton; Kelly Lange; Beth Caldwell; Katherine V Bankaitis
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 5.150

4.  US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status.

Authors:  Nadia Howlader; Sean F Altekruse; Christopher I Li; Vivien W Chen; Christina A Clarke; Lynn A G Ries; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Plasma HER2 amplification in cell-free DNA during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Troels Bechmann; Rikke Fredslund Andersen; Niels Pallisgaard; Jonna Skov Madsen; Else Maae; Erik Hugger Jakobsen; Anne Marie Bak Jylling; Karina Dahl Steffensen; Anders Jakobsen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Circulating miR-19a and miR-205 in serum may predict the sensitivity of luminal A subtype of breast cancer patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with epirubicin plus paclitaxel.

Authors:  Qian Li; Mei Liu; Fei Ma; Yang Luo; Ruigang Cai; Liming Wang; Ningzhi Xu; Binghe Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Thymosin beta 15A (TMSB15A) is a predictor of chemotherapy response in triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  S Darb-Esfahani; R Kronenwett; G von Minckwitz; C Denkert; M Gehrmann; A Rody; J Budczies; J C Brase; M K Mehta; H Bojar; B Ataseven; T Karn; E Weiss; D M Zahm; F Khandan; M Dietel; S Loibl
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Triple negative breast cancer subtypes and pathologic complete response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Angela Santonja; Alfonso Sánchez-Muñoz; Ana Lluch; Maria Rosario Chica-Parrado; Joan Albanell; José Ignacio Chacón; Silvia Antolín; José Manuel Jerez; Juan de la Haba; Vanessa de Luque; Cristina Elisabeth Fernández-De Sousa; Luis Vicioso; Yéssica Plata; César Luis Ramírez-Tortosa; Martina Álvarez; Casilda Llácer; Irene Zarcos-Pedrinaci; Eva Carrasco; Rosalía Caballero; Miguel Martín; Emilio Alba
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-05-29

9.  Identification of a 9-gene prognostic signature for breast cancer.

Authors:  Zelin Tian; Jianing Tang; Xing Liao; Qian Yang; Yumin Wu; Gaosong Wu
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.452

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.