Adjuvant capecitabine in triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment: real-world evidence from
adjuvant capecitabine
neoadjuvant treatment
residual tumors
treatment discontinuation
triple negative breast cancer
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
27
01
2023
accepted:
26
04
2023
medline:
1
6
2023
pubmed:
1
6
2023
entrez:
1
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles. The
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The
Identifiants
pubmed: 37260975
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1152123
pmc: PMC10227592
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1152123Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Di Lisa, Krasniqi, Pizzuti, Barba, Cannita, De Giorgi, Borella, Foglietta, Cariello, Ferro, Picardo, Mitidieri, Sini, Stani, Tonini, Santini, La Verde, Gambaro, Grassadonia, Tinari, Garrone, Sarobba, Livi, Meattini, D’Auria, Vergati, Gamucci, Pistelli, Berardi, Risi, Giotta, Lorusso, Rinaldi, Artale, Cazzaniga, Zustovich, Cappuzzo, Landi, Torrisi, Scagnoli, Botticelli, Michelotti, Fratini, Saltarelli, Paris, Muratore, Cassano, Gianni, Gaspari, Veltri, Zoratto, Fiorio, Fabbri, Mazzotta, Ruggeri, Pedersini, Valerio, Filomeno, Minelli, Scavina, Raffaele, Astone, De Vita, Pozzi, Riccardi, Greco, Moscetti, Giordano, Maugeri-Saccà, Zennaro, Botti, Pelle, Cappelli, Cavicchi, Vizza, Sanguineti, Tomao, Cortesi, Marchetti, Tomao, Speranza, Sperduti, Ciliberto and Vici.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 20;39(24):2720-2731
pubmed: 34003702
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 15;13(8):2329-34
pubmed: 17438091
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36(20):2105-2122
pubmed: 29846122
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021 Mar 22;7(1):29
pubmed: 33753748
Lancet. 2020 Oct 10;396(10257):1090-1100
pubmed: 32966830
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Sep;45 Suppl 1:27-40
pubmed: 19775602
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Aug 1;13(15 Pt 1):4429-34
pubmed: 17671126
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 May;115(2):423-8
pubmed: 18543098
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 10;39(23):2539-2551
pubmed: 34092112
Cancer Treat Rev. 2019 Jan;72:7-14
pubmed: 30414986
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 20;38(12):1346-1366
pubmed: 31928404
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 20;38(3):203-213
pubmed: 31804894
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 1;26(13):2118-23
pubmed: 18445840
N Engl J Med. 2022 Feb 10;386(6):556-567
pubmed: 35139274
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72
pubmed: 24529560
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2009 Jan;6(1):17-24
pubmed: 18936793
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1049-1060
pubmed: 28135148
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 1;376(22):2147-2159
pubmed: 28564564
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2021 Dec;27(8):1883-1890
pubmed: 33153384
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 27;382(9):810-821
pubmed: 32101663
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003 Sep;52(3):193-201
pubmed: 12783206
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 24;384(25):2394-2405
pubmed: 34081848
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1275-81
pubmed: 18250347