| Literature DB >> 34934456 |
Radu Vidra1,2,3, Adina Nemes1,2, Andreea Vidrean2, Sebastian Pintea4, Snejeana Tintari3, Andrada Deac2, Tudor Ciuleanu1,2.
Abstract
The addition of platinum compounds to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is highly controversial. Platinum agents, such as cisplatin and carboplatin, are DNA-damaging agents which exhibit activity in breast cancer, particularly in the TNBC subgroup. In order to assess the efficacy of each most representative platinum agent (cisplatin and carboplatin) in patients with TNBC treated with NACT, the present study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available published studies on TNBC. A search of PubMed was performed to identify studies that investigated platinum-based NACT in patients with TNBC. The primary endpoints were the pooled rate of the pathological complete response (pCR) between cisplatin vs. carboplatin-based NACT. A total of 24 studies were selected (17 studies for carboplatin and 6 studies for cisplatin and 1 study with both carboplatin and cisplatin, with 20 prospective studies) for the analysis of 1,711 patients with TNBC. Overall, the pooled rate of pCR in patients treated with platinum-based NACT was 48%. No significant differences were observed between the rates of pCR obtained under carboplatin vs cisplatin treatment. The carboplatin pCR rate was 0.470 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.401-0.539], while the cisplatin pCR rate was 0.473 (95% CI, 0.379-0.568). The comparison between these two categories revealed no significant differences (P=0.959). In the whole, the present study demonstrates that neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy improves the pCR rate in patients with TNBC, regardless of the platinum agent used. Carboplatin may thus represent a viable option due to its more favorable toxicity profile. Copyright: © Vidra et al.Entities:
Keywords: BRCA mutation; carboplatin; cisplatin; pathological complete response; platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy; triple-negative breast cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 34934456 PMCID: PMC8652390 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.11014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1Selection of publications included in the current meta-analysis.
Characteristics of the studies included in the current meta-analysis.
| Authors/(Refs.), year | Type of study | NLTN/not TNBCs | Protocol | pCR TNBCs with platinum (%) | pCR TNBCs without platinum (%) | pCR not TNBCs with (%) | ORRs TNBCs with vs. without platinum (%) | BCS (%) | DFS/OS (%) | DFS/OS pCR vs. no pCR pts (%) | Median FU (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frasci | Prospective series | 74/0 | wCDDP + wEPI + wPAC | 62 | - | - | 98.3 | - | 76/89 | 90/95.6 | 41 |
| Torrisi | Prospective series | 30/0 | EPI d1-2 + CDDP d1 + 5-FU ci d 1 (q21d) x 4 -> PAC d 1,8,15 (q28d) x 3 | 40 | - | - | 86 | 86 | - | - | 17 |
| Chen | Phase 2 | 24/71 | wPAC + wCBDCA d1, 8,15 (q28d) | 33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gogas | Phase 2 | 46 | PAC -> CBDCA AUC6 | 9.5 | - | - | 60 | - | -/66 | - | 45 |
| Chang | Prospective series | 11/63 | CBDCA AUC6 d1 (q21d) + 3wDOC d1 (q21d) x 4 | 54.6 | - | 20.9 | - | - | - | - | 22.8 |
| Silver | 28 | CDDP 75 mg/m2 (q21d) | 21 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Alba | Phase 2 randomized | 93 | EC d1 q 21 x 4 + 3wDOC ± CBDCA AUC5 d1 (q21d) x 4 | 30 | 35 | - | 77 vs. 70 | 72 vs. 67 | - | - | - |
| Hurley | Retrospective series | 144 | CBDCA AUC5 or wCBDCA or 3wCDDP + 3wDOC or wDOC x 4 ± AC x 4 | 31 | - | - | - | 7.6 | 55/61 | 81 vs.44/78 vs.51 | 48 |
| Roy | Phase 2 | 9/48 | DOC d1 (q14d) + CBDCA AUC6 d2 (q14d) x 4 | 44 | - | 11.9 | - | 34 | - | - | 38 |
| Sikov | Phase 2 randomized | 443 | wPAC x 12 -> AC d1 (q14d) X 4 ± wCBDCA ± bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) d1 (q14d) x 9 | 54 vs. 41b | - | - | 57 vs. 40 | - | - | - | |
| Ando | Phase 2 Randomized | 181 | wCBDCA AUC5 + wPAC -> (CEF) CTX + EPI + 5-FU | 61.2 | 26.3 | - | 84.1 vs 70.3 | NR | - | - | - |
| Kern | Prospective series | 30 | CBDCA AUC6 + DOC d1 | 50 (q21d) | - | - | - | 100 | - | - | - |
| Zhu | Phase 2 | 14/96 | CBDCA AUC 5 + PAC ± trastuzumab (6 mg/mg), bi-weekly | 57.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| AL-Tweigeri | Phase 2 | 51/29 | (FEC100) EPI + CTX + 5-FU d1 (q21d) -> CDDP + DOC ± trastuzumab d1 (q21d) | 36 | - | - | - | NR | 67/86 | 96/95 vs 57/82 | 43 |
| Cancello | Phase 2 | 34 | EPI + CDDP + 5-FU d1 (q21d) -> PAC d1,8,15 (q28d) + CTX 50 mg/day for 12 weeks | 56 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 27 |
| Shinde | Retrospective series | 10/29 | CBDCA AUC6 + wPAC | 60 | - | 31 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Zhang | Phase 2 randomized | 91 | EPI + PAC d1/2 (q21d) vs. PAC + CBDCA AUC5 d2/1 (q21d) | 38.6 vs. 14 | - | - | 89.4 vs. 79.5 | - | 71.1 vs. 52.8/7 0.1 vs. 72.5 | - | 55 |
| De Iuliis | 24/37 | CBDCA AUC2 + PAC ± trastuzumab | 83 | - | - | 61,39 | 57 | - | - | 48 | |
| Sharma | Phase 2 | 190 | CBDCA AUC6 + DOC + MGFS (q21d) | 55 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gluz | Randomized trial | 336 | Arm A: PAC + GEM d1,8 (q3w) Arm B: PAC+ CBDCA AUC2 d1,8 (q3w) | 45.9 | 28.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Hahnen | Randomized Clinical Trial | 291 | Arm A: PAC+ NPLD + bevacizumab + CBDCA AUC2 Arm B: PAC + NPLD + bevacizumab | 56.8 | 41.4 | - | - | - | 85.3/- | - | 35 |
| Jovanovic | Phase 2 | 145 | CDDP + PAC ± everolimus | 40 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 42 |
| Fontaine | Prospective phase 2 | 63 | wPAC + CBDCA AUC2 -> EPI + CTX + MGFS | 54 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 22 |
| Schmid | Randomized double-blind trial | 1174 | PAC + CBDCA + pembrolizumab; PAC + CBDCA + pembro placebo -> DOC/EPI + CTX | 68.9/54.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15,5 |
W, weekly; d, day; - not available; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; pCR, pathologic complete response; NR, not reported; BCS, breast-conserving surgery; ORR, overall response rate; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival; FU, follow up; CBDCA, carboplatin; CDDP, cisplatin; PAC, paclitaxel; DOC, docetexel; EPI, epirubicin; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; NPLD, non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; ADM, adriamycin; AUC, area under the curve; AC, adriamycin + cyclophosphamide; EC, epirubicin + cyclophosphamide; FEC, 5-fluorouracil + epirubicin 100 mg/m2 + cyclophosphamide; NAB-PAC, nab-paclitaxel; GEM, gemcitabine; CTX, cyclophosphamide; MGFS, myeloid growth factor support; ->, followed.
Figure 2Forest plot of the overall pCR rate in the platinum group. The results indicate a non-significant overall rate of pCR=0.480; (95% CI, 0.425-0.535), compared with the pCR rate obtained under random conditions (Z=-0.705; P=0.481). pCR, pathological complete response.
Analysis of the pCR rate as a function of treatment (carboplatin vs cisplatin).
| Heterogeneity between categories | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | No. of studies | pCR rate | Inf (95% CI%) | Sup (95% CI%) | Z value | P-value | Q-value | df | P-value |
| Carboplatin | 18 | 0.470 | 0.401 | 0.539 | -0.859 | 0.390 | 0.003 | 1 | 0.959 |
| Cisplatin | 7 | 0.473 | 0.379 | 0.568 | -0.559 | 0.576 | |||
pCR, pathological complete response; df, degrees of freedom; inf, confidence interval lower limit; sup, confidence interval upper limit.
Analysis of the pCR rate as a function of BRCA (only 4 studies reported results separately, positive vs. negative).
| Heterogeneity between categories | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | No. of studies | pCR rate | Inf (95% CI%) | Sup (95% CI%) | Z value | P-value | Q-value | df | P-value |
| Negative | 3 | 0.452 | 0.294 | 0.621 | -0.547 | 0.584 | 2.534 | 1 | 0.111 |
| Positive | 3 | 0.626 | 0.495 | 0.740 | 1.892 | 0.059 | |||
pCR, pathological complete response; df, degrees of freedom; inf, confidence interval lower limit; sup, confidence interval upper limit.