Jiaqiang Zhang1, Chang-Yun Lu2, Ho-Min Chen3,4, Szu-Yuan Wu1,3,4,5,6,7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan, Taiwan. 3. Department of Food Nutrition and Health Biotechnology, Asia University College of Medical and Health Science, Taichung, Taiwan. 4. Big Data Center, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan, Taiwan. 5. Division of Radiation Oncology, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan, Taiwan. 6. Department of Healthcare Administration, Asia University College of Medical and Health Science, Taichung, Taiwan. 7. School of Dentistry, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
Importance: Although neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is an alternative to chemotherapy for strongly hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative breast cancer, evidence is currently lacking regarding the probable survival outcomes of NET in comparison with those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for this cancer. Objective: To evaluate all-cause mortality among patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer treated with NET vs NACT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity, treated between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up from the index date (ie, date of IDC diagnosis) to December 31, 2018. The data came from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database. Data were analyzed from January to November 2020. Exposures: NET vs NACT for IDC with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze all-cause mortality among patients undergoing different neoadjuvant treatments. Results: A total of 640 patients (297 [46.4%] aged 20-49 years) undergoing NET (145 patients [22.7%]) or NACT (495 patients [77.3%]) were eligible for further analysis. In the multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality among the NET cohort compared with the NACT cohort was 2.67 (95% CI, 1.95-3.51; P < .001). The aHRs for age were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.03-2.24), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.17-3.49) for all-cause mortality among patients aged 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 years or older, respectively, compared with those aged 20 to 49 years (P = .002); the aHR for all-cause mortality among premenopausal women was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.13-1.56) compared with postmenopausal women (P < .001); and that of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or greater was 1.77 (1.37-2.26) compared with those with a score of 0 (P < .001). The aHRs of all-cause mortality for clinical tumor stage 2, 3, and 4 compared with 1 were 1.84 (95% CI, 1.07-3.40), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.03-3.77), and 2.49 (95% CI, 1.29-4.81), respectively (P = .009). The aHRs for all-cause mortality by clinical nodal (cN) stages were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.13-1.99) and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.31-2.61) for cN stage 1 and cN stages 2 or 3, respectively, compared with cN stage 0 (P = .005); those for differentiation were 1.77 (95% CI, 1.24-2.54) and 2.31 (95% CI, 1.61-3.34) for differentiation grade 2 and differentiation grade 3, respectively, compared with differentiation grade 1 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that for patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative IDC, NACT may be considered the first choice for neoadjuvant treatment.
Importance: Although neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is an alternative to chemotherapy for strongly hormone receptor (HR)-positive and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative breast cancer, evidence is currently lacking regarding the probable survival outcomes of NET in comparison with those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for this cancer. Objective: To evaluate all-cause mortality among patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer treated with NET vs NACT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity, treated between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up from the index date (ie, date of IDC diagnosis) to December 31, 2018. The data came from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database. Data were analyzed from January to November 2020. Exposures: NET vs NACT for IDC with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze all-cause mortality among patients undergoing different neoadjuvant treatments. Results: A total of 640 patients (297 [46.4%] aged 20-49 years) undergoing NET (145 patients [22.7%]) or NACT (495 patients [77.3%]) were eligible for further analysis. In the multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality among the NET cohort compared with the NACT cohort was 2.67 (95% CI, 1.95-3.51; P < .001). The aHRs for age were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.03-2.24), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.17-3.49) for all-cause mortality among patients aged 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 years or older, respectively, compared with those aged 20 to 49 years (P = .002); the aHR for all-cause mortality among premenopausal women was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.13-1.56) compared with postmenopausal women (P < .001); and that of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or greater was 1.77 (1.37-2.26) compared with those with a score of 0 (P < .001). The aHRs of all-cause mortality for clinical tumor stage 2, 3, and 4 compared with 1 were 1.84 (95% CI, 1.07-3.40), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.03-3.77), and 2.49 (95% CI, 1.29-4.81), respectively (P = .009). The aHRs for all-cause mortality by clinical nodal (cN) stages were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.13-1.99) and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.31-2.61) for cN stage 1 and cN stages 2 or 3, respectively, compared with cN stage 0 (P = .005); those for differentiation were 1.77 (95% CI, 1.24-2.54) and 2.31 (95% CI, 1.61-3.34) for differentiation grade 2 and differentiation grade 3, respectively, compared with differentiation grade 1 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that for patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative IDC, NACT may be considered the first choice for neoadjuvant treatment.
Authors: Jiaqiang Zhang; Lei Qin; Ho-Min Chen; Han-Chuan Hsu; Chih-Chi Chuang; Dar Chen; Szu-Yuan Wu Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: T R Jeffry Evans; Ann Yellowlees; Elizabeth Foster; Helena Earl; David A Cameron; Andrew W Hutcheon; Robert E Coleman; Timothy Perren; Christopher J Gallagher; Mary Quigley; John Crown; Alison L Jones; Martin Highley; Robert C F Leonard; Janine L Mansi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brigid K Killelea; Vicky Q Yang; Sarah Mougalian; Nina R Horowitz; Lajos Pusztai; Anees B Chagpar; Donald R Lannin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: E Alba; L Calvo; J Albanell; J R De la Haba; A Arcusa Lanza; J I Chacon; P Sanchez-Rovira; A Plazaola; J A Lopez Garcia-Asenjo; B Bermejo; E Carrasco; A Lluch Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Julie R Gralow; Harold J Burstein; William Wood; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Luca Gianni; Gunter von Minckwitz; Aman U Buzdar; Ian E Smith; William F Symmans; Baljit Singh; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544