Danielle M File1, Tomas Pascual2,3, Allison M Deal3, Amy Wheless3, Charles M Perou4, E Claire Dees1,3, Lisa A Carey5. 1. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Hospital Universitario, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 3. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 450 West Drive, CB#7295, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7295, USA. 4. Department of Genetics, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Lisa_Carey@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have superior outcomes compared to those with recurrent MBC in a contemporary treatment era and examined factors related to outcome differentials. METHODS: Using an institutional database, we examined patient and tumor characteristics, treatment response, and outcome among 232 patients with de novo and 612 patients with recurrent MBC diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: De novo MBC had 9-month (m) longer overall survival (OS) than recurrent MBC (36.4 vs 27.4 m, p < 0.001). Contributions to this difference included nearly twofold more HER2-positive (29.3% vs 15.2%) and significantly fewer triple-negative breast cancers (20.3% vs 32.4%, both p < 0.001) in de novo compared with recurrent MBC cohorts. Stratified by clinical subtype, progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line therapy was significantly longer in de novo MBC in all but the triple-negative subtype, 25.5 vs 11.6 m (p < 0.001) among 390 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, 11.4 vs 5.4 m (p = 0.002) among 142 patients with HER2-positive, and 4.0 vs 3.0 m (p = 0.121) among 162 with triple-negative MBC. In multivariable analysis, de novo status remained independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80), regardless of subtype and other features. CONCLUSION: Patients with de novo MBC have better outcomes than those with recurrent MBC. Differences in clinical subtype and response to therapy in the metastatic setting contribute to, but do not fully explain, this difference. Longer PFS to first-line therapy in de novo MBC suggests biologic differences compared to recurrent MBC, which may be intrinsic or due to acquired resistance from treatment for prior localized breast cancer in recurrent disease.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have superior outcomes compared to those with recurrent MBC in a contemporary treatment era and examined factors related to outcome differentials. METHODS: Using an institutional database, we examined patient and tumor characteristics, treatment response, and outcome among 232 patients with de novo and 612 patients with recurrent MBC diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: De novo MBC had 9-month (m) longer overall survival (OS) than recurrent MBC (36.4 vs 27.4 m, p < 0.001). Contributions to this difference included nearly twofold more HER2-positive (29.3% vs 15.2%) and significantly fewer triple-negative breast cancers (20.3% vs 32.4%, both p < 0.001) in de novo compared with recurrent MBC cohorts. Stratified by clinical subtype, progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line therapy was significantly longer in de novo MBC in all but the triple-negative subtype, 25.5 vs 11.6 m (p < 0.001) among 390 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, 11.4 vs 5.4 m (p = 0.002) among 142 patients with HER2-positive, and 4.0 vs 3.0 m (p = 0.121) among 162 with triple-negative MBC. In multivariable analysis, de novo status remained independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80), regardless of subtype and other features. CONCLUSION: Patients with de novo MBC have better outcomes than those with recurrent MBC. Differences in clinical subtype and response to therapy in the metastatic setting contribute to, but do not fully explain, this difference. Longer PFS to first-line therapy in de novo MBC suggests biologic differences compared to recurrent MBC, which may be intrinsic or due to acquired resistance from treatment for prior localized breast cancer in recurrent disease.
Authors: Wendie D den Brok; Caroline H Speers; Lovedeep Gondara; Emily Baxter; Scott K Tyldesley; Caroline A Lohrisch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Hong Zhang; Carlos H Barrios; Shigehira Saji; Kyung Hae Jung; Roberto Hegg; Andreas Koehler; Joohyuk Sohn; Hiroji Iwata; Melinda L Telli; Cristiano Ferrario; Kevin Punie; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shilpen Patel; Anh Nguyen Duc; Mario Liste-Hermoso; Vidya Maiya; Luciana Molinero; Stephen Y Chui; Nadia Harbeck Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter Schmid; Sylvia Adams; Hope S Rugo; Andreas Schneeweiss; Carlos H Barrios; Hiroji Iwata; Véronique Diéras; Roberto Hegg; Seock-Ah Im; Gail Shaw Wright; Volkmar Henschel; Luciana Molinero; Stephen Y Chui; Roel Funke; Amreen Husain; Eric P Winer; Sherene Loi; Leisha A Emens Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D J A Lobbezoo; R J W van Kampen; A C Voogd; M W Dercksen; F van den Berkmortel; T J Smilde; A J van de Wouw; F P J Peters; J M G H van Riel; N A J B Peters; M de Boer; P G M Peer; V C G Tjan-Heijnen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jennifer K Plichta; Samantha M Thomas; Amanda R Sergesketter; Rachel A Greenup; Laura H Rosenberger; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Gretchen Kimmick; Jeremy Force; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 13.787