Axillary Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Node-Positive, Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: Predictors and Oncologic Outcomes.
Axillary response
Breast cancer
Neoadjuvant
Node positive
Pathologic complete response
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Mar 2022
18 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
10
09
2021
accepted:
02
02
2022
entrez:
18
3
2022
pubmed:
19
3
2022
medline:
19
3
2022
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
One potential benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) patients is axillary downstaging to avoid axillary dissection. The aim of this study was to evaluate axillary response to NAT with chemotherapy (NCT) or endocrine therapy (NET) and identify potential predictors of response. A prospectively collected database was queried for node-positive, ER+, HER2- breast cancer patients treated with NAT and surgery from January 2011 to September 2020. Axillary response was categorized into pathologic complete response (pCR) versus no pCR, and was correlated to demographic and clinicopathologic parameters in a logistic regression model. A cohort of 176 eligible patients was identified and 178 breast cancers were included in the study. The overall axillary pCR rate was 12.3% (22/178). NCT and NET achieved response rates of 13.9% (19/137) and 7.3% (3/41), respectively (p = 0.232). A significantly higher axillary pCR rate was identified in patients with clinical stage II at diagnosis (12/60, 20%) compared with stage III (10/118, 8.4%; p = 0.03). NET patients with ypN0 were younger and were treated for a longer period of time (>6 months). Completion axillary dissection was omitted in the majority (73.7%) of NCT patients achieving axillary pCR. For patients with node-positive, ER+, HER2- breast cancer, a lower burden of disease at the time of diagnosis (stage II) is associated with a significantly higher axillary pCR, enabling those patients to be spared axillary dissection. Further studies are necessary to define the role of genomic profiling in predicting axillary response.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
One potential benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) patients is axillary downstaging to avoid axillary dissection.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate axillary response to NAT with chemotherapy (NCT) or endocrine therapy (NET) and identify potential predictors of response.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospectively collected database was queried for node-positive, ER+, HER2- breast cancer patients treated with NAT and surgery from January 2011 to September 2020. Axillary response was categorized into pathologic complete response (pCR) versus no pCR, and was correlated to demographic and clinicopathologic parameters in a logistic regression model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A cohort of 176 eligible patients was identified and 178 breast cancers were included in the study. The overall axillary pCR rate was 12.3% (22/178). NCT and NET achieved response rates of 13.9% (19/137) and 7.3% (3/41), respectively (p = 0.232). A significantly higher axillary pCR rate was identified in patients with clinical stage II at diagnosis (12/60, 20%) compared with stage III (10/118, 8.4%; p = 0.03). NET patients with ypN0 were younger and were treated for a longer period of time (>6 months). Completion axillary dissection was omitted in the majority (73.7%) of NCT patients achieving axillary pCR.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with node-positive, ER+, HER2- breast cancer, a lower burden of disease at the time of diagnosis (stage II) is associated with a significantly higher axillary pCR, enabling those patients to be spared axillary dissection. Further studies are necessary to define the role of genomic profiling in predicting axillary response.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35303178
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11473-9
pii: 10.1245/s10434-022-11473-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Teshome M, Hunt KK. Neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014;23(3):505–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2014.03.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2014.03.006
pubmed: 24882348
pmcid: 4044615
King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12(6):335–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63 .
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63
pubmed: 25850554
El Hage Chehade H, Headon H, El Tokhy O, Heeney J, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy a viable alternative to complete axillary dissection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis? An updated meta-analysis involving 3,398 patients. Am J Surg. 2016;212(5):969–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.07.018 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.07.018
Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): A prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9
pubmed: 23683750
Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: The SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):258–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.7827 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.7827
pubmed: 25452445
Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the american college of surgeons oncology group (ACOSOG) Z1071 clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278932 .
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278932
pubmed: 24101169
pmcid: 4075763
Rosenberg PS, Barker KA, Anderson WF. Estrogen Receptor Status and the Future Burden of Invasive and In Situ Breast Cancers in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;djv107(9):159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv159 .
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv159
Sweeney C, Bernard PS, Factor RE, et al. Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(5):714–24. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1023 .
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1023
pubmed: 24521995
pmcid: 4011983
Vila J, Mittendorf EA, Farante G, et al. Nomograms for predicting axillary response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in clinically node-positive patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3501–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5277-1 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5277-1
pubmed: 27216742
Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: Results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3676–85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.032 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.032
pubmed: 15738535
Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1275–81. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147
pubmed: 18250347
Cerbelli B, Botticelli A, Pisano A, et al. Breast cancer subtypes affect the nodal response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: are we ready to endorse axillary conservation? Breast J. 2019;25(2):273–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13206 .
doi: 10.1111/tbj.13206
pubmed: 30734420
Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, et al. How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastases? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3467–74. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8
pubmed: 27160528
pmcid: 5070651
Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260(4):608–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000924 (discussion 614-6).
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000924
pubmed: 25203877
Jun H, Jai C, Ryu M, et al. Prediction of axillary pathologic response with breast pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;176(3):591–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05214-y .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05214-y
Zeidman M, Alberty-Oller JJ, Ru M, et al. Use of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a national cancer database (NCDB) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;184(1):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05809-w .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05809-w
pubmed: 32740807
Mamounas EP, Liu Q, Paik S, et al. 21-Gene recurrence score and locoregional recurrence in node-positive/er-positive breast cancer treated with chemo-endocrine therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(4):djw259. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw259 .
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw259
pmcid: 5721938
Cardoso F, van Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. MINDACT Investigators 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602253 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602253
pubmed: 27557300
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th edn. New York: Springer, New York LLC; 2017.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3
Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, et al. Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype – ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(17):2342–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6950 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6950
pubmed: 21555689
pmcid: 21555689
Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, et al. IMPACT Trialists Group. Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: the Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined with Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):5108–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.005 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.005
pubmed: 15998903
Lerebours F, Pulido M, Fourme E, et al. Predictive factors of 5-year relapse-free survival in HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: pooled analysis of two phase 2 trials. Br J Cancer. 2020;122(6):759–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0733-x .
doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-0733-x
pubmed: 32001832
pmcid: 7078275
Tee SR, Devane LA, Evoy D, et al. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1541–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10986 .
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10986
pubmed: 30311642
Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Loibl S, et al; Members of the St. Gallen International Consensus Panel on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2019. Estimating the benefits of therapy for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2019. Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct;30(10):1541-1557. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz235
Magnoni F, Galimberti V, Corso G, Intra M, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Axillary surgery in breast cancer: An updated historical perspective. Semin Oncol. 2020;47(6):341–52. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.09.001 .
doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.09.001
pubmed: 33131896
Spring LM, Gupta A, Reynolds KL, et al. Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1477–86. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1897 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1897
pubmed: 27367583
pmcid: 5738656
Kantor O, Wakeman M, Weiss A, et al. Axillary management after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(3):1358–67. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09073-6 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09073-6
pubmed: 32869154
Montagna G, Mamtani A, Knezevic A, Brogi E, Barrio AV, Morrow M. Selecting node-positive patients for axillary downstaging with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(11):4515–22. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08650-z .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08650-z
pubmed: 32488513
pmcid: 7501229
Petruolo OA, Pilewskie M, Patil S, et al. Standard pathologic features can be used to identify a subset of estrogen receptor-positive, HER2 negative patients likely to benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(9):2556–62. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5898-z .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5898-z
pubmed: 28560596
pmcid: 5649343
Schipper RJ, Moossdorff M, Nelemans PJ, et al. A model to predict pathologic complete response of axillary lymph nodes to neoadjuvant chemo(immuno)therapy in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(5):315–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2013.12.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.12.015
pubmed: 24548732
Kim HJ, Noh WC, Lee ES, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pre-menopausal patients with oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative, lymph node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2020;22(1):54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01288-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01288-5
pubmed: 32460816
pmcid: 7251809
Masuda N, Sagara Y, Kinoshita T, et al. Neoadjuvant anastrozole versus tamoxifen in patients receiving goserelin for premenopausal breast cancer (STAGE): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(4):345–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70373-4 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70373-4
pubmed: 22265697
Stemmer SM, Steiner M, Rizel S, et al. Clinical outcomes in ER+ HER2 -node-positive breast cancer patients who were treated according to the Recurrence Score results: evidence from a large prospectively designed registry. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0033-7 .
doi: 10.1038/s41523-017-0033-7
pubmed: 28900632
pmcid: 5591314
Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Breast Cancer Intergroup of North America. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70314-6 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70314-6
pubmed: 20005174
Whitworth P, Beitsch P, Mislowsky A, et al. Chemosensitivity and Endocrine Sensitivity in Clinical Luminal Breast Cancer Patients in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) Predicted by Molecular Subtyping. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(3):669–75. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5600-x .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5600-x
pubmed: 27770345
Glück S, de Snoo F, Peeters J, Stork-Sloots L, Somlo G. Molecular subtyping of early-stage breast cancer identifies a group of patients who do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(3):759–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2572-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2572-4
pubmed: 23756626
Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, et al. A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1683-z .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1683-z
pubmed: 21814749
Kalinsky K, Barlow WE, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. First results from a phase III randomized clinical trial of standard adjuvant endocrine therapy +/− chemotherapy in patients with 1-3 positive nodes, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer with recurrence score of 25 or Less: SWOG S1007. 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium. San Antonio, TX (2021). https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-gs3-00