PURPOSE: As triple-negative breast cancers are associated with earlier recurrences and poorer survival, optimal treatment of early-stage breast cancer is essential. Several retrospective studies in triple-negative breast cancer have reported conflicting results in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. This study aims to analyze outcomes of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer with and without BRCA germline mutations. METHODS: Patients with stage I or II triple-negative breast cancer who had BRCA testing were identified from a prospective cohort study of 4027 patients. Clinical, demographic, genetic test results, chemotherapy, recurrence, and survival data were analyzed. Overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 319 patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer who met eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. 187 received adjuvant chemotherapy (58.6%) and 132 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (41.4%). 135 were BRCA positive (42.3%) and 184 were BRCA negative (57.7%). There was no significant association between overall survival or disease-free survival and treatment with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant in the overall cohort. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between patient subgroups (neoadjuvant BRCA positive, neoadjuvant BRCA negative, adjuvant BRCA positive, and adjuvant BRCA negative) with respect to either overall survival or disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant with standard anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimens results in similar disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer regardless of BRCA status. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether similar results are observed with newer agents.
PURPOSE: As triple-negative breast cancers are associated with earlier recurrences and poorer survival, optimal treatment of early-stage breast cancer is essential. Several retrospective studies in triple-negative breast cancer have reported conflicting results in overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. This study aims to analyze outcomes of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer with and without BRCA germline mutations. METHODS:Patients with stage I or II triple-negative breast cancer who had BRCA testing were identified from a prospective cohort study of 4027 patients. Clinical, demographic, genetic test results, chemotherapy, recurrence, and survival data were analyzed. Overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 319 patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer who met eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. 187 received adjuvant chemotherapy (58.6%) and 132 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (41.4%). 135 were BRCA positive (42.3%) and 184 were BRCA negative (57.7%). There was no significant association between overall survival or disease-free survival and treatment with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant in the overall cohort. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between patient subgroups (neoadjuvant BRCA positive, neoadjuvant BRCA negative, adjuvant BRCA positive, and adjuvant BRCA negative) with respect to either overall survival or disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant with standard anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimens results in similar disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with stage I and II triple-negative breast cancer regardless of BRCA status. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether similar results are observed with newer agents.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjuvant chemotherapy; BRCA mutation; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Triple-negative breast cancer
Authors: Carla S Fisher; Cynthia X Ma; William E Gillanders; Rebecca L Aft; Timothy J Eberlein; Feng Gao; Julie A Margenthaler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: T Byrski; T Huzarski; R Dent; E Marczyk; M Jasiowka; J Gronwald; J Jakubowicz; C Cybulski; R Wisniowski; D Godlewski; J Lubinski; S A Narod Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne-Renee Hartman; Rajesh R Kaldate; Lisa M Sailer; Lisa Painter; Charles E Grier; Robbin R Endsley; Marlena Griffin; Stephanie A Hamilton; Cynthia A Frye; Mark A Silberman; Richard J Wenstrup; John F Sandbach Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Janice S Kwon; Angelica M Gutierrez-Barrera; Diana Young; Charlotte C Sun; Molly S Daniels; Karen H Lu; Banu Arun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew Tutt; Mark Robson; Judy E Garber; Susan M Domchek; M William Audeh; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Michael Friedlander; Banu Arun; Niklas Loman; Rita K Schmutzler; Andrew Wardley; Gillian Mitchell; Helena Earl; Mark Wickens; James Carmichael Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mark Robson; Seock-Ah Im; Elżbieta Senkus; Binghe Xu; Susan M Domchek; Norikazu Masuda; Suzette Delaloge; Wei Li; Nadine Tung; Anne Armstrong; Wenting Wu; Carsten Goessl; Sarah Runswick; Pierfranco Conte Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachel Greenup; Adam Buchanan; Wendy Lorizio; Keelia Rhoads; Salina Chan; Tracey Leedom; Robin King; Jane McLennan; Beth Crawford; P Kelly Marcom; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Steven J Isakoff; Shannon Puhalla; Susan M Domchek; Michael Friedlander; Bella Kaufman; Mark Robson; Melinda L Telli; Véronique Diéras; Hyo Sook Han; Judy E Garber; Eric F Johnson; David Maag; Qin Qin; Vincent L Giranda; Stacie P Shepherd Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Anna C Beck; Haimiao Yuan; Junlin Liao; Pamela Imperiale; Krysten Shipley; Lillian M Erdahl; Sonia L Sugg; Ronald J Weigel; Ingrid M Lizarraga Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.565