Background: We conducted a meta-analysis in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to assess the clinical validity of circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection as a prognostic marker. Methods: We collected individual patient data from 21 studies in which CTC detection by CellSearch was performed in early breast cancer patients treated with NCT. The primary end point was overall survival, analyzed according to CTC detection, using Cox regression models stratified by study. Secondary end points included distant disease-free survival, locoregional relapse-free interval, and pathological complete response. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Data from patients were collected before NCT (n = 1574) and before surgery (n = 1200). CTC detection revealed one or more CTCs in 25.2% of patients before NCT; this was associated with tumor size (P < .001). The number of CTCs detected had a detrimental and decremental impact on overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P < .001), but not on pathological complete response. Patients with one, two, three to four, and five or more CTCs before NCT displayed hazard ratios of death of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 1.69), 2.63 (95% CI = 1.42 to 4.54), 3.83 (95% CI = 2.08 to 6.66), and 6.25 (95% CI = 4.34 to 9.09), respectively. In 861 patients with full data available, adding CTC detection before NCT increased the prognostic ability of multivariable prognostic models for overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P = .008). Conclusions: CTC count is an independent and quantitative prognostic factor in early breast cancer patients treated by NCT. It complements current prognostic models based on tumor characteristics and response to therapy.
Background: We conducted a meta-analysis in nonmetastatic breast cancerpatients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to assess the clinical validity of circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection as a prognostic marker. Methods: We collected individual patient data from 21 studies in which CTC detection by CellSearch was performed in early breast cancerpatients treated with NCT. The primary end point was overall survival, analyzed according to CTC detection, using Cox regression models stratified by study. Secondary end points included distant disease-free survival, locoregional relapse-free interval, and pathological complete response. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Data from patients were collected before NCT (n = 1574) and before surgery (n = 1200). CTC detection revealed one or more CTCs in 25.2% of patients before NCT; this was associated with tumor size (P < .001). The number of CTCs detected had a detrimental and decremental impact on overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P < .001), but not on pathological complete response. Patients with one, two, three to four, and five or more CTCs before NCT displayed hazard ratios of death of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 1.69), 2.63 (95% CI = 1.42 to 4.54), 3.83 (95% CI = 2.08 to 6.66), and 6.25 (95% CI = 4.34 to 9.09), respectively. In 861 patients with full data available, adding CTC detection before NCT increased the prognostic ability of multivariable prognostic models for overall survival (P < .001), distant disease-free survival (P < .001), and locoregional relapse-free interval (P = .008). Conclusions: CTC count is an independent and quantitative prognostic factor in early breast cancerpatients treated by NCT. It complements current prognostic models based on tumor characteristics and response to therapy.
Authors: Lorenz C Hofbauer; Aline Bozec; Martina Rauner; Franz Jakob; Sven Perner; Klaus Pantel Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Milan Radovich; Guanglong Jiang; Bradley A Hancock; Christopher Chitambar; Rita Nanda; Carla Falkson; Filipa C Lynce; Christopher Gallagher; Claudine Isaacs; Marcelo Blaya; Elisavet Paplomata; Radhika Walling; Karen Daily; Reshma Mahtani; Michael A Thompson; Robert Graham; Maureen E Cooper; Dean C Pavlick; Lee A Albacker; Jeffrey Gregg; Jeffrey P Solzak; Yu-Hsiang Chen; Casey L Bales; Erica Cantor; Fei Shen; Anna Maria V Storniolo; Sunil Badve; Tarah J Ballinger; Chun-Li Chang; Yuan Zhong; Cagri Savran; Kathy D Miller; Bryan P Schneider Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Heather M Brechbuhl; Kiran Vinod-Paul; Austin E Gillen; Etana G Kopin; Kari Gibney; Anthony D Elias; Masanori Hayashi; Carol A Sartorius; Peter Kabos Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Mark Jesus M Magbanua; Christina Yau; Denise M Wolf; Jin Sun Lee; Aheli Chattopadhyay; Janet H Scott; Erin Bowlby-Yoder; E Shelley Hwang; Michael Alvarado; Cheryl A Ewing; Amy L Delson; Laura J Van't Veer; Laura Esserman; John W Park Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Devon Livingston-Rosanoff; Jessica Schumacher; Kara Vande Walle; Trista Stankowski-Drengler; Caprice C Greenberg; Heather Neuman; Lee G Wilke Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Alexios-Fotios A Mentis; Petros D Grivas; Efthimios Dardiotis; Nicholas A Romas; Athanasios G Papavassiliou Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 9.261