IMPORTANCE: Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors of the breast are generally highly responsive to endocrine treatment. Although endocrine therapy is the mainstay of adjuvant treatment for ER+ breast cancer, the role of endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) on the response rate and the rate of breast conservation surgery (BCS) for ER+ breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: Based on PRISMA guidelines, a librarian-led search of PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE was performed to identify eligible trials published from inception to May 15, 2015. The search was performed in May 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were prospective, randomized, neoadjuvant clinical trials that reported response rates with at least 1 arm incorporating NET (n = 20). Two authors independently analyzed the studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pooled odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model. RESULTS: The analysis included 20 studies with 3490 unique patients. Compared with combination chemotherapy, NET as monotherapy with aromatase inhibitors had a similar clinical response rate (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.50-2.35; P = .85; n = 378), radiological response rate (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.92-2.07; P = .12; n = 378), and BCS rate (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41-1.03; P = .07; n = 334) but with lower toxicity. Aromatase inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher clinical response rate (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.36-2.10; P < .001; n = 1352), radiological response rate (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.89; P < .001; n = 1418), and BCS rate (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.24-2.12; P < .001; n = 918) compared with tamoxifen. Dual combination therapy with growth factor pathway inhibitors was associated with a higher radiological response rate (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43; P = .03; n = 355), but not clinical response rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07; P = .11; n = 537), compared with endocrine monotherapy. The incidence of pathologic complete response was low (<10%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, even as monotherapy, is associated with similar response rates as neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy but with significantly lower toxicity, suggesting that NET needs to be reconsidered as a potential option in the appropriate setting. Additional research is needed to develop rational NET combinations and predictive biomarkers to personalize the optimal neoadjuvant strategy for ER+ breast cancer.
IMPORTANCE: Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors of the breast are generally highly responsive to endocrine treatment. Although endocrine therapy is the mainstay of adjuvant treatment for ER+ breast cancer, the role of endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setting is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) on the response rate and the rate of breast conservation surgery (BCS) for ER+ breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: Based on PRISMA guidelines, a librarian-led search of PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE was performed to identify eligible trials published from inception to May 15, 2015. The search was performed in May 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were prospective, randomized, neoadjuvant clinical trials that reported response rates with at least 1 arm incorporating NET (n = 20). Two authors independently analyzed the studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pooled odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were estimated for end points using the fixed- and random-effects statistical model. RESULTS: The analysis included 20 studies with 3490 unique patients. Compared with combination chemotherapy, NET as monotherapy with aromatase inhibitors had a similar clinical response rate (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.50-2.35; P = .85; n = 378), radiological response rate (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.92-2.07; P = .12; n = 378), and BCS rate (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.41-1.03; P = .07; n = 334) but with lower toxicity. Aromatase inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher clinical response rate (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.36-2.10; P < .001; n = 1352), radiological response rate (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.89; P < .001; n = 1418), and BCS rate (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.24-2.12; P < .001; n = 918) compared with tamoxifen. Dual combination therapy with growth factor pathway inhibitors was associated with a higher radiological response rate (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43; P = .03; n = 355), but not clinical response rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07; P = .11; n = 537), compared with endocrine monotherapy. The incidence of pathologic complete response was low (<10%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, even as monotherapy, is associated with similar response rates as neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy but with significantly lower toxicity, suggesting that NET needs to be reconsidered as a potential option in the appropriate setting. Additional research is needed to develop rational NET combinations and predictive biomarkers to personalize the optimal neoadjuvant strategy for ER+ breast cancer.
Authors: M J Ellis; A Coop; B Singh; L Mauriac; A Llombert-Cussac; F Jänicke; W R Miller; D B Evans; M Dugan; C Brady; E Quebe-Fehling; M Borgs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas Polychronis; H Dudley Sinnett; Dimitri Hadjiminas; Hemant Singhal; Janine L Mansi; Dharsha Shivapatham; Sami Shousha; Jie Jiang; David Peston; Nigel Barrett; David Vigushin; Ken Morrison; Emma Beresford; Simak Ali; Martin J Slade; R Charles Coombes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Meredith M Regan; Barbara A Walley; Gini F Fleming; Marco Colleoni; István Láng; Henry L Gomez; Carlo Tondini; Harold J Burstein; Edith A Perez; Eva Ciruelos; Vered Stearns; Hervé R Bonnefoi; Silvana Martino; Charles E Geyer; Graziella Pinotti; Fabio Puglisi; Diana Crivellari; Thomas Ruhstaller; Eric P Winer; Manuela Rabaglio-Poretti; Rudolf Maibach; Barbara Ruepp; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Karen N Price; Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Giuseppe Viale; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Prudence A Francis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harry D Bear; Wen Wan; André Robidoux; Peter Rubin; Steven Limentani; Richard L White; James Granfortuna; Judith O Hopkins; Dwight Oldham; Angel Rodriguez; Amy P Sing Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Tessa G Steenbruggen; Mette S van Ramshorst; Marleen Kok; Sabine C Linn; Carolien H Smorenburg; Gabe S Sonke Journal: Drugs Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Jennifer Y Sheng; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Neha Mangini; Haval Norman; Rima Couzi; Raquel Nunes; Mary Wilkinson; Kala Visvanathan; Roisin M Connolly; Evanthia T Roussos Torres; John H Fetting; Deborah K Armstrong; Jessica J Tao; Lisa Jacobs; Jean L Wright; Elissa D Thorner; Christine Hodgdon; Samantha Horn; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns; Karen L Smith Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Miguel Martín; José I Chacón; Antonio Antón; Arrate Plazaola; Elena García-Martínez; Miguel A Seguí; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; José Palacios; Lourdes Calvo; Carmen Esteban; Enrique Espinosa; Agusti Barnadas; Norberto Batista; Angel Guerrero; Montserrat Muñoz; Estefania Romio; César Rodríguez-Martín; Rosalía Caballero; María I Casas; Federico Rojo; Eva Carrasco; Silvia Antolín Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-07-12