M E Tesch1, S K Chia1, C E Simmons1, N LeVasseur2. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, Canada. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, Canada. nathalie.levasseur@bccancer.bc.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data exploring optimal sequencing of anthracyclines and taxanes as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer are limited and inconsistent. The objective of this study was to assess the real-world impact of sequence order on pathologic complete response (pCR) and clinical outcomes from NACT. METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative breast cancer treated with NACT from May 2012 to April 2020 were identified from a prospectively collected institutional database. The primary endpoint was to compare rates of pCR (ypT0/isN0) between patients who received anthracyclines followed by taxanes (AC-T) to those who received taxanes followed by anthracyclines (T-AC). Additional endpoints of interest included clinical complete response, downstaging, Neo-Bioscore, conversion to breast-conserving surgery eligibility, relapse-free survival, and overall survival between groups. RESULTS: Of the 283 patients who met eligibility criteria, 187 (66%) received AC-T and 96 (34%) received T-AC. Sequence order did not influence the primary endpoint of pCR rate (19% for AC-T vs. 21% for T-AC, p = 0.752). There were also no significant differences in secondary NACT efficacy outcomes between groups. In the overall cohort, pCR rate was higher in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (32% vs. 13% in hormone-positive cancer, p < 0.001) and grade 3 tumors (31% vs. 12% for grade 1-2 tumors, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of HER2-negative breast cancer patients, there was no differential impact on pCR rate or clinical outcomes from NACT with sequence order of anthracyclines and taxanes. This supports the current variation in prescribing practice.
PURPOSE: Data exploring optimal sequencing of anthracyclines and taxanes as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer are limited and inconsistent. The objective of this study was to assess the real-world impact of sequence order on pathologic complete response (pCR) and clinical outcomes from NACT. METHODS:Patients with HER2-negative breast cancer treated with NACT from May 2012 to April 2020 were identified from a prospectively collected institutional database. The primary endpoint was to compare rates of pCR (ypT0/isN0) between patients who received anthracyclines followed by taxanes (AC-T) to those who received taxanes followed by anthracyclines (T-AC). Additional endpoints of interest included clinical complete response, downstaging, Neo-Bioscore, conversion to breast-conserving surgery eligibility, relapse-free survival, and overall survival between groups. RESULTS: Of the 283 patients who met eligibility criteria, 187 (66%) received AC-T and 96 (34%) received T-AC. Sequence order did not influence the primary endpoint of pCR rate (19% for AC-T vs. 21% for T-AC, p = 0.752). There were also no significant differences in secondary NACT efficacy outcomes between groups. In the overall cohort, pCR rate was higher in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (32% vs. 13% in hormone-positive cancer, p < 0.001) and grade 3 tumors (31% vs. 12% for grade 1-2 tumors, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of HER2-negative breast cancerpatients, there was no differential impact on pCR rate or clinical outcomes from NACT with sequence order of anthracyclines and taxanes. This supports the current variation in prescribing practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Chemotherapy; Neoadjuvant; Pre-operative; Taxanes
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Constance T Cirrincione; William M Sikov; Lisa A Carey; Donald A Berry; Beth Overmoyer; Nora L Henry; George Somlo; Elisa Port; Harold J Burstein; Clifford Hudis; Eric Winer; David W Ollila Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Fiona J Gilbert; Antoinne K Ah-See; Oleg Eremin; Leslie G Walker; Tarun K Sarkar; S Peter Eggleton; Keith N Ogston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helena M Earl; Anne-Laure Vallier; Louise Hiller; Nicola Fenwick; Jennie Young; Mahesh Iddawela; Jean Abraham; Luke Hughes-Davies; Ioannis Gounaris; Karen McAdam; Stephen Houston; Tamas Hickish; Anthony Skene; Stephen Chan; Susan Dean; Diana Ritchie; Robert Laing; Mark Harries; Christopher Gallagher; Gordon Wishart; Janet Dunn; Elena Provenzano; Carlos Caldas Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Constance T Cirrincione; William M Sikov; Donald A Berry; Sara Jasinski; Tracey F Weisberg; George Somlo; Clifford Hudis; Eric Winer; David W Ollila Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nathalie LeVasseur; J Sun; L Gondara; R Diocee; C Speers; C Lohrisch; S Chia Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Baoqing Guo; David J Villeneuve; Stacey L Hembruff; Angie F Kirwan; David E Blais; Michel Bonin; Amadeo M Parissenti Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Priya Rastogi; Stewart J Anderson; Harry D Bear; Charles E Geyer; Morton S Kahlenberg; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; James L Hoehn; Victor G Vogel; Shaker R Dakhil; Deimante Tamkus; Karen M King; Eduardo R Pajon; Mary Johanna Wright; Jean Robert; Soonmyung Paik; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544