Pathological complete response of adding targeted therapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer: A systematic review.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
12
10
2020
accepted:
31
03
2021
entrez:
16
4
2021
pubmed:
17
4
2021
medline:
30
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The current use of targeted therapy plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is based on data extrapolated from studies in non-IBC. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy results in a higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with IBC. This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO register with registration number CRD42018089465. We searched MEDLINE & PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO from December 1998 through July 2020. All English-language clinical studies, both randomized and non-randomized, that evaluated neoadjuvant systemic treatment with or without targeted therapy before definitive surgery and reported the pCR results of IBC patients. First reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Second reviewer confirmed the accuracy. Studies were divided into 3 groups according to systemic treatment: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, chemotherapy alone, and high-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell support (HSCS). Of 995 screened studies, 23 with 1,269 IBC patients met the inclusion criteria. For each of the 3 groups of studies, we computed a weighted average of the pCR rates across all studies with confidence interval (CI). The weighted averages (95% CIs) were as follows: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, 31.6% (26.4%-37.3%), chemotherapy alone, 13.0% (10.3%-16.2%), and high-dose chemotherapy with HSCS, 23.0% (18.7%-27.7%). The high pCR by targeted therapy group came from anti-HER2 therapy, 54.4% (44.3%-64.0%). Key limitations of this study included no randomized clinical studies that included only IBC patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy is more effective than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for IBC patients. These findings support current IBC standard practice in particular the use of anti-HER2 targeted therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The current use of targeted therapy plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is based on data extrapolated from studies in non-IBC. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy results in a higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rate than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with IBC.
METHOD AND FINDINGS
This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO register with registration number CRD42018089465. We searched MEDLINE & PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO from December 1998 through July 2020. All English-language clinical studies, both randomized and non-randomized, that evaluated neoadjuvant systemic treatment with or without targeted therapy before definitive surgery and reported the pCR results of IBC patients. First reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Second reviewer confirmed the accuracy. Studies were divided into 3 groups according to systemic treatment: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, chemotherapy alone, and high-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell support (HSCS). Of 995 screened studies, 23 with 1,269 IBC patients met the inclusion criteria. For each of the 3 groups of studies, we computed a weighted average of the pCR rates across all studies with confidence interval (CI). The weighted averages (95% CIs) were as follows: chemotherapy with targeted therapy, 31.6% (26.4%-37.3%), chemotherapy alone, 13.0% (10.3%-16.2%), and high-dose chemotherapy with HSCS, 23.0% (18.7%-27.7%). The high pCR by targeted therapy group came from anti-HER2 therapy, 54.4% (44.3%-64.0%). Key limitations of this study included no randomized clinical studies that included only IBC patients.
CONCLUSION
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus targeted therapy is more effective than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for IBC patients. These findings support current IBC standard practice in particular the use of anti-HER2 targeted therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33861773
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250057
pii: PONE-D-20-31752
pmc: PMC8051801
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0250057Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000371
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009 Aug;15(8):963-70
pubmed: 19589486
Anticancer Res. 2012 Aug;32(8):3539-45
pubmed: 22843943
Cancer. 2002 Feb 15;94(4):895-901
pubmed: 11920456
J Cell Physiol. 2016 Nov;231(11):2541-7
pubmed: 27187274
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):83-91
pubmed: 19901111
Cancer. 2001 Oct 1;92(7):1775-82
pubmed: 11745249
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3248-55
pubmed: 20530274
Lancet. 2010 Jan 30;375(9712):377-84
pubmed: 20113825
Clin Breast Cancer. 2006 Dec;7(5):386-95
pubmed: 17239263
N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 15;344(11):783-92
pubmed: 11248153
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 27;382(9):810-821
pubmed: 32101663
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):115-126
pubmed: 29175149
Breast Dis. 2005-2006;22:9-23
pubmed: 16735783
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;4(9):1207-1213
pubmed: 29879283
Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1692-7
pubmed: 25943350
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 20;27(18):2938-45
pubmed: 19364964
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Haematologica. 2001 May;86(5):523-9
pubmed: 11410417
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(4):328-335
pubmed: 29486983
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 1;32(19):2018-24
pubmed: 24888808
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998 Feb;21(3):249-54
pubmed: 9489647
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Aug;158(3):485-95
pubmed: 27393622
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94
pubmed: 19622512
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):e228-e232
pubmed: 28368261
Br J Cancer. 1999 Oct;81(3):449-56
pubmed: 10507769
Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;30(10):1674
pubmed: 31236598
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):600-11
pubmed: 27032301
Cancer Treat Rev. 2017 Feb;53:111-119
pubmed: 28104566
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):656-66
pubmed: 25975632
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Ann Oncol. 2011 Mar;22(3):515-523
pubmed: 20603440
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):25-32
pubmed: 22153890
Clin Breast Cancer. 2010 Dec 1;10(6):483-8
pubmed: 21147693
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):1014-21
pubmed: 21220618
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999 Nov;24(9):981-7
pubmed: 10556957
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Oct;141(3):429-35
pubmed: 24068539
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 6;97(13):966-75
pubmed: 15998949
Lancet. 2017 Mar 18;389(10074):1134-1150
pubmed: 27865536
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1997;40(4):321-9
pubmed: 9225950
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Aug;165(1):181-191
pubmed: 28577078
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Jul;176(1):217-226
pubmed: 30972613
Acta Oncol. 2005;44(3):248-54
pubmed: 16076697
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jul;25(7):1783-1785
pubmed: 29671136
J Cancer. 2018 Apr 6;9(8):1437-1447
pubmed: 29721054
Ann Oncol. 2013 Dec;24(12):2978-84
pubmed: 24136883
Oncologist. 2004;9 Suppl 1:43-9
pubmed: 15178815
Lancet Oncol. 2014 May;15(6):640-7
pubmed: 24657003
Clin Breast Cancer. 2004 Dec;5(5):358-63
pubmed: 15585073
Cancer. 2006 Dec 1;107(11):2535-44
pubmed: 17054108
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Apr;13(4):375-84
pubmed: 22377126