| Literature DB >> 32440212 |
Shiwei Liu1, Exian Mou1, Shiyan Zeng1, Lu Wang2, Hao Dong3, Juan Ji3, Hong Yang3, Junjie Li1, Hao Wang1, Hui Li1, Jia Xu1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of trastuzumab on the pathological complete response (pCR) rate and event-free survival (EFS) in neoadjuvant-treated HER2-positive breast cancer with a low infiltrating level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The infiltrating level of TILs was evaluated in hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from diagnostic needle biopsies, and a low infiltrating level of TILs was defined as TILs < 10%. Data of 179 HER2-positive patients with a low infiltrating level of TILs were retrospectively reviewed and compared according to whether trastuzumab was administered or not. The associations of clinicopathological characteristics with pCR or EFS were assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses. EFS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log rank test.Entities:
Keywords: HER2; event-free survival; pathological complete response; trastuzumab; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32440212 PMCID: PMC7221413 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S248071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Representative image of a low infiltrating level of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.
Patient and Tumor Characteristics
| Characteristics | All Patients | Without Trastuzumab | With Trastuzumab | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Years) | ||||
| ≤50 | 68 (38.0%) | 40 (38.1%) | 28 (37.8%) | |
| >50 | 111 (62.0%) | 65 (61.9%) | 46 (62.2%) | 0.972 |
| Menopausal Status | ||||
| Pre | 63 (35.2%) | 36 (34.3%) | 27 (36.5%) | |
| Post | 116 (64.8%) | 69 (65.7%) | 47 (63.5%) | 0.761 |
| Clinical Tumor Sizea | ||||
| T1–2 | 150 (83.8%) | 89 (84.8%) | 61 (82.4%) | |
| T3–4 | 29 (16.2%) | 16 (15.2%) | 13 (17.6%) | 0.677 |
| Clinical Nodal Statusa | ||||
| N0 | 86 (48.0%) | 51 (48.6%) | 35 (47.3%) | |
| N+ | 93 (52.0%) | 54 (51.4%) | 39 (52.7%) | 0.867 |
| Histology | ||||
| Ductal | 173 (96.6%) | 101 (96.2%) | 72 (97.3%) | |
| Other | 6 (3.4%) | 4 (3.8%) | 2 (2.7%) | 0.685 |
| Histological Grade | ||||
| 3 | 58 (32.4%) | 33 (31.4%) | 25 (33.8%) | |
| 1–2 | 121 (67.6%) | 72 (68.6%) | 49 (66.2%) | 0.740 |
| Ki67 Score | ||||
| >35% | 84 (46.9%) | 47 (44.8%) | 37 (50.0%) | |
| ≤35% | 95 (53.1%) | 58 (55.2%) | 37 (50.0%) | 0.489 |
| HR Status | ||||
| Negative | 56 (31.3%) | 33 (31.4%) | 23 (31.1%) | |
| Positive | 123 (68.7%) | 72 (68.6%) | 51 (68.9%) | 0.961 |
| Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy | ||||
| Combined | 83 (46.4%) | 48 (45.7%) | 35 (47.3%) | |
| Sequential | 96 (53.6%) | 57 (54.3%) | 39 (52.7%) | 0.834 |
| Surgery of the Breast | ||||
| Mastectomy | 151 (84.4%) | 89 (84.8%) | 62 (83.8%) | |
| Breast conservation | 28 (15.6%) | 16 (15.2%) | 12 (16.2%) | 0.859 |
| Surgery of the Axilla | ||||
| SLNB | 50 (27.9%) | 30 (28.6%) | 20 (27.0%) | |
| ALND | 129 (72.1%) | 75 (71.4%) | 54 (73.0%) | 0.821 |
| Adjuvant Radiotherapy | ||||
| Yes | 119 (66.5%) | 68 (64.8%) | 51 (68.9%) | |
| No | 60 (33.5%) | 37 (35.2%) | 23 (31.1%) | 0.562 |
| Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy | ||||
| Yes | 117 (65.4%) | 69 (65.7%) | 48 (64.9%) | |
| No | 62 (34.6%) | 36 (34.3%) | 26 (35.1%) | 0.906 |
Note: aClinical tumor size and nodal status were assessed according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system.
Abbreviations: ALND, axillary lymph node dissection; HR, hormone receptor; SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Associations of pCR with Patient and Tumor Characteristics in Univariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression Analyses
| Characteristics | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Age, years (≤50 vs >50) | 1.21 | 0.58–2.55 | 0.611 | 1.29 | 0.36–4.67 | 0.698 |
| Menopausal status (pre vs post) | 1.05 | 0.49–2.25 | 0.898 | 1.12 | 0.30–4.22 | 0.870 |
| Clinical tumor size (T1–2 vs T3–4) | 1.25 | 0.44–3.54 | 0.674 | 2.36 | 0.61–9.15 | 0.214 |
| Clinical nodal status (N0 vs N+) | 1.94 | 0.92–4.09 | 0.082 | 1.59 | 0.64–3.95 | 0.319 |
| Histology (ductal vs other) | 1.27 | 0.14–11.21 | 0.831 | 0.68 | 0.06–7.97 | 0.757 |
| Histological grade (3 vs 1–2) | 2.58 | 1.22–5.44 | 0.013 | 3.25 | 1.39–7.62 | 0.007 |
| Ki67 score (>35% vs ≤35%) | 1.02 | 0.49–2.11 | 0.968 | 1.02 | 0.44–2.39 | 0.957 |
| HR status (negative vs positive) | 3.72 | 1.74–7.93 | 0.001 | 5.33 | 2.11–13.45 | <0.001 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (combined vs sequential) | 1.20 | 0.58–2.49 | 0.625 | 0.56 | 0.23–1.37 | 0.201 |
| Trastuzumab (with vs without) | 1.02 | 0.48–2.14 | 0.965 | 1.00 | 0.45–2.26 | 0.994 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hormone receptor; OR, odds ratio; pCR, pathological complete response.
Figure 2Pathological complete response rates according to treatment and tumor characteristics. (A) (light-gray box) pCR rates of tumors treated with trastuzumab versus without trastuzumab, (dark-gray box) pCR rates of tumors with histological grade 3 versus histological grade 1–2, (black box) pCR rates of tumors with negative HR status versus positive HR status; (B) pCR rates of tumors with negative HR status versus positive HR status in subsets of histological grade 3 and histological grade 1–2, respectively.
Abbreviations: HR, hormone receptor; pCR, pathological complete response.
Associations of EFS with Patient and Tumor Characteristics in Univariate and Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Analyses
| Characteristics | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard | 95% | Hazard Ratio | 95% | |||
| Age, years (≤50 vs >50) | 0.72 | 0.40–1.31 | 0.287 | 0.66 | 0.26–1.67 | 0.380 |
| Menopausal status (pre vs post) | 0.87 | 0.48–1.57 | 0.632 | 1.10 | 0.43–2.84 | 0.841 |
| Clinical tumor size (T1–2 vs T3–4) | 0.70 | 0.35–1.37 | 0.294 | 0.66 | 0.28–1.52 | 0.328 |
| Clinical nodal status (N0 vs N+) | 0.69 | 0.39–1.23 | 0.205 | 0.45 | 0.17–1.22 | 0.117 |
| Histology (ductal vs other) | 0.87 | 0.12–6.39 | 0.891 | 1.23 | 0.16–9.74 | 0.842 |
| Histological grade (3 vs 1–2) | 1.00 | 0.55–1.83 | 0.992 | 1.15 | 0.60–2.19 | 0.670 |
| Ki67 score (>35% vs ≤35%) | 0.99 | 0.56–1.75 | 0.975 | 0.88 | 0.47–1.66 | 0.689 |
| HR status (negative vs positive) | 1.06 | 0.58–1.93 | 0.855 | 0.74 | 0.15–3.70 | 0.713 |
| Trastuzumab (with vs without) | 0.97 | 0.55–1.73 | 0.916 | 0.79 | 0.43–1.43 | 0.431 |
| Pathological response (pCR vs non-pCR) | 0.35 | 0.14–0.89 | 0.028 | 0.26 | 0.09–0.74 | 0.012 |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (combined vs sequential) | 1.06 | 0.60–1.86 | 0.851 | 0.97 | 0.51–1.86 | 0.930 |
| Adjuvant radiotherapy (yes vs no) | 1.23 | 0.65–2.32 | 0.531 | 0.68 | 0.23-2.06 | 0.498 |
| Adjuvant endocrine therapy (yes vs no) | 0.89 | 0.49–1.60 | 0.692 | 0.45 | 0.09–2.18 | 0.318 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EFS, event-free survival; HR, hormone receptor; pCR, pathological complete response.
Figure 3Event-free survival according to trastuzumab usage and status of pathological response. (A) EFS of patients treated with trastuzumab versus without trastuzumab; (B) EFS of patients with pCR versus without pCR.
Abbreviations: EFS, event-free survival; pCR, pathological complete response.