BACKGROUND: No survival benefit has yet been demonstrated for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) against HER2-positive tumors in patients with early breast cancer (BC). The objective of this study was to compare the prognosis of HER2-positive BC patients treated with NAC to that of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in 202 HER2-positive patients treated with NAC and 701 patients treated with AC. All patients received trastuzumab in addition to chemotherapy. Patient data were weighted by a propensity score to overcome selection bias. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) adjustment, no difference in DFS (p = 0.3) was found between treatments for the total population. However, after multivariate analysis, an interaction was found between cN status and chemotherapy strategy (IPTW-corrected corrected Hazard ratio cHR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.3-0.9), p interaction = 0.08) and between menopausal status and chemotherapy (CT) strategy (cHR = 0.35, 95%CI (0.18-0.7)) p interaction < 0.01). NAC was more beneficial than AC strategy in cN-positive patients and in postmenopausal patients. Moreover, after IPTW adjustment, the multivariate analysis showed that the neoadjuvant strategy conferred a significant OS benefit (cHR = 0.09, 95%CI [0.02-0.35], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with HER2-positive BC, the NAC strategy is more beneficial than the AC strategy, particularly in cN-positive and postmenopausal patients. NAC should be used as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive tumors.
BACKGROUND: No survival benefit has yet been demonstrated for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) against HER2-positive tumors in patients with early breast cancer (BC). The objective of this study was to compare the prognosis of HER2-positive BC patients treated with NAC to that of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in 202 HER2-positive patients treated with NAC and 701 patients treated with AC. All patients received trastuzumab in addition to chemotherapy. Patient data were weighted by a propensity score to overcome selection bias. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) adjustment, no difference in DFS (p = 0.3) was found between treatments for the total population. However, after multivariate analysis, an interaction was found between cN status and chemotherapy strategy (IPTW-corrected corrected Hazard ratio cHR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.3-0.9), p interaction = 0.08) and between menopausal status and chemotherapy (CT) strategy (cHR = 0.35, 95%CI (0.18-0.7)) p interaction < 0.01). NAC was more beneficial than AC strategy in cN-positive patients and in postmenopausal patients. Moreover, after IPTW adjustment, the multivariate analysis showed that the neoadjuvant strategy conferred a significant OS benefit (cHR = 0.09, 95%CI [0.02-0.35], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with HER2-positive BC, the NAC strategy is more beneficial than the AC strategy, particularly in cN-positive and postmenopausal patients. NAC should be used as a first-line treatment for HER2-positive tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
HER2-positive tumors; adjuvant chemotherapy; breast cancer; neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Authors: Muayad F Almahariq; Thomas J Quinn; Zaid Siddiqui; Maha S Jawad; Peter Y Chen; Gregory S Gustafson; Joshua T Dilworth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew P Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Steven J Isakoff; Janice Lyons; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena S Moran; Ruth M O'Regan; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Amy Sitapati; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Maria K Pomponio; Laura Burkbauer; Macy Goldbach; Susanna M Nazarian; Fei Xie; Amy S Clark; Jennifer M Matro; Kevin R Fox; Lawrence N Shulman; Luke J Keele; Julia Tchou Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: M Tubiana-Hulin; D Stevens; S Lasry; J M Guinebretière; L Bouita; C Cohen-Solal; P Cherel; J Rouëssé Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: L Arnould; M Gelly; F Penault-Llorca; L Benoit; F Bonnetain; C Migeon; V Cabaret; V Fermeaux; P Bertheau; J Garnier; J-F Jeannin; B Coudert Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-01-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: W Truin; G Vugts; R M H Roumen; A J G Maaskant-Braat; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; M van der Heiden-van der Loo; V C G Tjan-Heijnen; A C Voogd Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Cynthia Huang Bartlett; Jack Mardekian; Matthew James Cotter; Xin Huang; Zhe Zhang; Christina M Parrinello; Ariel Bulua Bourla Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.240