Sanaz Samiei1,2,3, Janine M Simons3, Sanne M E Engelen1, Regina G H Beets-Tan3,4, Jean-Marc Classe5, Marjolein L Smidt1,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, Loire Atlantique, France.
Abstract
Importance: An overview of rates of axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) for all breast cancer subtypes, both for patients with and without pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease, is lacking. Objective: To provide pooled data of all studies in the neoadjuvant setting on axillary pCR rates for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease. Data Sources: The electronic databases Embase and PubMed were used to conduct a systematic literature search on July 16, 2020. The references of the included studies were manually checked to identify other eligible studies. Study Selection: Studies in the neoadjuvant therapy setting were identified regarding axillary pCR for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease (ie, defined as node-positive before the initiation of neoadjuvant systemic therapy). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria and extracted all data. All discrepant results were resolved during a consensus meeting. To identify the different subtypes, the subtype definitions as reported by the included articles were used. The random-effects model was used to calculate the overall pooled estimate of axillary pCR for each breast cancer subtype. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the rate of axillary pCR and residual axillary lymph node disease after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for different breast cancer subtypes, differentiating studies with and without patients with pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease. Results: This pooled analysis included 33 unique studies with 57 531 unique patients and showed the following axillary pCR rates for each of the 7 reported subtypes in decreasing order: 60% for hormone receptor (HR)-negative/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive, 59% for ERBB2-positive (HR-negative or HR-positive), 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR-positive/ERBB2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, and 13% for luminal A breast cancer. No major differences were found in the axillary pCR rates per subtype by analyzing separately the studies of patients with and without pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease before neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The HR-negative/ERBB2-positive subtype was associated with the highest axillary pCR rate. These data may help estimate axillary treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting and thus select patients for more or less invasive axillary procedures.
Importance: An overview of rates of axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) for all breast cancer subtypes, both for patients with and without pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease, is lacking. Objective: To provide pooled data of all studies in the neoadjuvant setting on axillary pCR rates for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease. Data Sources: The electronic databases Embase and PubMed were used to conduct a systematic literature search on July 16, 2020. The references of the included studies were manually checked to identify other eligible studies. Study Selection: Studies in the neoadjuvant therapy setting were identified regarding axillary pCR for different breast cancer subtypes in patients with initially clinically node-positive disease (ie, defined as node-positive before the initiation of neoadjuvant systemic therapy). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria and extracted all data. All discrepant results were resolved during a consensus meeting. To identify the different subtypes, the subtype definitions as reported by the included articles were used. The random-effects model was used to calculate the overall pooled estimate of axillary pCR for each breast cancer subtype. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of this study was the rate of axillary pCR and residual axillary lymph node disease after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for different breast cancer subtypes, differentiating studies with and without patients with pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease. Results: This pooled analysis included 33 unique studies with 57 531 unique patients and showed the following axillary pCR rates for each of the 7 reported subtypes in decreasing order: 60% for hormone receptor (HR)-negative/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive, 59% for ERBB2-positive (HR-negative or HR-positive), 48% for triple-negative, 45% for HR-positive/ERBB2-positive, 35% for luminal B, 18% for HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, and 13% for luminal A breast cancer. No major differences were found in the axillary pCR rates per subtype by analyzing separately the studies of patients with and without pathologically proven clinically node-positive disease before neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The HR-negative/ERBB2-positive subtype was associated with the highest axillary pCR rate. These data may help estimate axillary treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting and thus select patients for more or less invasive axillary procedures.
Authors: Sabine R de Wild; Janine M Simons; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Marjolein L Smidt; Linetta B Koppert Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Giacomo Montagna; Minna K Lee; Varadan Sevilimedu; Andrea V Barrio; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Janine M Simons; Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; Carmen C van der Pol; Paul J van Diest; Agnes Jager; David van Klaveren; Boen L R Kam; Marc B I Lobbes; Maaike de Boer; Cees Verhoef; Paul R A Sars; Harald J Heijmans; Els R M van Haaren; Wouter J Vles; Caroline M E Contant; Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers; Léonie H M Smit; Wendy Kelder; Marike Boskamp; Linetta B Koppert; Ernest J T Luiten; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Jana de Boniface; Jan Frisell; Thorsten Kühn; Ingrid Wiklander-Bråkenhielm; Karin Dembrower; Per Nyman; Athanasios Zouzos; Bernd Gerber; Toralf Reimer; Steffi Hartmann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Steffi Hartmann; Thorsten Kühn; Michael Hauptmann; Elmar Stickeler; Marc Thill; Michael P Lux; Sarah Fröhlich; Franziska Ruf; Sibylle Loibl; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Elisabeth Thiemann; Michael Weigel; Christine Solbach; Gabriele Kaltenecker; Peter Paluchowski; Michael G Schrauder; Stefan Paepke; Dirk Watermann; Markus Hahn; Maria Hufnagel; Jutta Lefarth; Michael Untch; Maggie Banys-Paluchowski Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Fernando A Angarita; Robert Brumer; Matthew Castelo; Nestor F Esnaola; Stephen B Edge; Kazuaki Takabe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.575