| Literature DB >> 30060745 |
Marie Viala1, Akiko Chiba2, Simon Thezenas3, Laure Delmond4, Pierre-Jean Lamy5, Sarah L Mott6, Mary C Schroeder7, Alexandra Thomas8, William Jacot9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been interest in the potential benefit of vitamin D (VD) to improve breast cancer outcomes. Pre-clinical studies suggest VD enhances chemotherapy-induced cell death. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with not attaining a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for operable breast cancer. We report the impact of VD on pCR and survival in an expanded cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Neo-adjuvant breast cancer; Vitamin D; pCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30060745 PMCID: PMC6066931 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4686-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Patient and Tumor Characteristics by Vitamin D level
| Vitamin D level |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| < 20 ng/ml | ≥ 20 ng/ml | ||
| Population | 42% (136) | 58% (191) | |
| Median age | 49.5 | 50 |
|
| Histological type |
| ||
| Ductal carcinoma | 83.9% (99) | 85.9% (122) | |
| Lobular carcinoma | 7.6 (9) | 9.9% (14) | |
| Other | 8.5% (10) | 4.2% (6) | |
| NA | (18) | (49) | |
| Tumor subtypes |
| ||
| HER2+ | 20.6% (28) | 34.2% (65) | |
| HR+/HER2 | 47.1% (64) | 41.6% (79) | |
| TNBC | 32.4% (44) | 24.2% (46) | |
| NA | 0 | 1 | |
| Tumor size |
| ||
| T1 | 12.5% (17) | 9.4% (17) | |
| T2 | 56.6% (77) | 62.6%(119) | |
| T3 | 19.1% (26) | 19.5% (37) | |
| T4 | 11.8% (16) | 8.9% (17) | |
| NA | 0 | 1 | |
| Nodal status |
| ||
| N0 | 43.7% (59) | 19.5% (93) | |
| N1 | 46.7% (63) | 43.6% (82) | |
| N2 | 8.9% (12) | 5.3% (10) | |
| N3 | 0.7% (1) | 1.6% (3) | |
| NA | 1 | 3 | |
| SBR grade |
| ||
| II | 46.6% (62) | 45.5% (85) | |
| III | 53.4% (71) | 54.5%(102) | |
| NA | 3 | 4 | |
| Clinical stage |
| ||
| I-II | 72.8% (99) | 73% (138) | |
| III | 27.2% (37) | 27% (51) | |
| NA | 0 | 2 | |
Correlation between pCR and clinical-pathological data: univariate analysis
| No pCR | pCR | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| < 50 | 44.5% (98) | 55.1% (59) |
|
| ≥50 | 55.5% (122) | 44.9% (48) | |
| Tumor subtypes | |||
| HER2+ | 20.5% (45) | 45.3% (48) |
|
| HR+/Her2- | 54.5% (120) | 21.7% (23) | |
| TNBC | 25% (55) | 33% (35) | |
| Grade SBR | |||
| II | 51.9% (111) | 34% (36) |
|
| III | 48.1% (103) | 66% (70) | |
| Clinical stage | |||
| I-II | 68.9% (151) | 81.1% (86) |
|
| III | 31.1% (68) | 18.9% (20) | |
| Vitamin D level | |||
| < 20 ng/mL | 45.5% (100) | 33.6% (36) |
|
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 54.5% (120) | 66.4% (71) | |
Correlation between pCR and clinical-pathological data: multivariate analysis
| pCR | OR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| < 50 | |||
| ≥ 50 | 0.45 | 0.3–0.7 |
|
| Clinical stage | |||
| I-II | |||
| III | 0.34 | 0.2–0.6 |
|
| Histological grade (SBR) | |||
| II | |||
| III | 1.19 | 0.7–1.9 |
|
| Tumor subtypes | |||
| HER2+ | 1.6 | 0.7–3.8 |
|
| HR+/Her2- | |||
| TNBC | 1.0 | 0.5–2.3 |
|
| VD level | |||
| < 20 ng/mL | |||
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 0.43 | 0.2–0.8 |
|
Fig. 1OS by Vitamin D level
Correlation between OS and clinical-pathological data in a univariate analysis
| 5 years-OS (%) | 95%CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age |
| ||
| < 50 | 86 | 0.79–0.91 | |
| ≥ 50 | 82 | 0.76–0.88 | |
| VD level |
| ||
| < 20 ng/mL | 82% | 0.75–0.88 | |
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 85% | 0.79–0.9 | |
| Clinical stage |
| ||
| I-II | 89% | 0.84–0.93 | |
| III | 72% | 0.61–0.80 | |
| pCR |
| ||
| no | 79% | 0.73–0.84 | |
| yes | 94% | 0.86–0.98 | |
| Tumor subtypes |
| ||
| HER2+ | 90% | 0.82–0.95 | |
| HR+/Her2- | 92% | 0.86–0.96 | |
| TNBC | 65% | 0.53–0.74 | |
| SBR grade |
| ||
| II | 86% | 0.79–0.91 | |
| III | 83% | 0.76–0.88 |
Correlation between OS and clinical-pathological data in a multivariate analysis
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Range (26–74) | |||
| Median: 49.5 | |||
| < 50 | |||
| ≥ 50 | 1.2 | 0.7–2.3 |
|
| VD level | |||
| < 20 ng/mL | |||
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 1.03 | 0.6–1.8 |
|
| Clinical stage | |||
| I-II | |||
| III | 2.8 | 1.6–5.0 |
|
| Tumor subtypes | |||
| HER2+ | 1.77 | 0.8–4.1 |
|
| HR+/HER2- | |||
| TNBC | 6.5 | 3.1–13.7 |
|
| pCR | |||
| no | |||
| yes | 0.2 | 0.09–0.5 |
|
| SBR grade | |||
| II | |||
| III | 0.86 | 0.5–1.6 |
|
Fig. 2PFS by Vitamin D level in the full cohort
Correlation between PFS and clinical-pathological data in a univariate analysis
| 5 years-PFS (%) | 95%CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age |
| ||
| < 50 | 82 | 0.75–0.88 | |
| ≥ 50 | 75 | 0.67–0.81 | |
| VD level |
| ||
| < 20 ng/mL | 76 | 0.67–0.82 | |
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 80 | 0.73–0.85 | |
| Clinical stage |
| ||
| I-II | 84 | 0.78–0.89 | |
| III | 62 | 0.51–0.72 | |
| pCR |
| ||
| no | 72 | 0.65–0.78 | |
| yes | 92 | 0.84–0.96 | |
| Tumor subtypes |
| ||
| HER2+ | 84 | 0.74–0.90 | |
| HR+/HER2- | 84 | 0.77–0.90 | |
| TNBC | 62 | 0.51–0.72 | |
| SBR grade |
| ||
| II | 79 | 0.71–0.85 | |
| III | 78 | 0.71–0.84 |
Correlation between PFS and clinical-pathological data in a multivariate analysis
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| < 50 | |||
| ≥ 50 | 1.4 | 0.84–2.3 |
|
| VD level | |||
| < 20 ng/mL | |||
| ≥ 20 ng/mL | 0.9 | 0.6–1.5 |
|
| Clinical stage | |||
| I-II | |||
| III | 2.4 | 1.4–3.9 |
|
| Tumor subtypes | |||
| HER2+ | 1.6 | 0.30–1.21 |
|
| HR+/HER2- | |||
| TNBC | 4.3 | 1.42–4.80 |
|
| pCR | |||
| no | |||
| yes | 0.25 | 0.12–0.50 |
|
| SBR grade | |||
| II | |||
| III | 0.94 | 0.52–1.70 |
|
Fig. 3a OS depending on the Vitamin D level in the HER2+ tumor subtype. b OS depending on Vitamin D level in the HR+/HER2- tumors subtypes. c OS depending on the Vitamin D level in the TN tumor subtypes
Fig. 4PFS depending on the VD level in the HR+/HER2- tumor subtype
Fig. 5PFS depending on the Vitamin D level in the TN tumor subtypes
Fig. 6a OS depending on the pathological response in the different tumors subtypes. b PFS depending on pathological response in the different tumor subtypes