Neoadjuvant exemestane or exemestane plus docetaxel and cyclophosphamide tailored by clinicopathological response to 12 weeks' exemestane exposure in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: A multicenter, open-label, phase II study

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy for HR-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer is controversial and requires a comprehensive analysis for optimal therapy assessment. Therefore, a two-step Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of different neoadjuvant regimens.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Phase II/III randomized clinical trials comparing various neoadjuvant therapies for HR+/HER2- breast cancer were included. NMA and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted using Stata (version 14), R (version 4.2.3), and Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (5,625 patients) were eligible. NMA of objective response rate (ORR) indicated the highest SUCRA for chemotherapy (CT) and chemotherapy with anthracycline (CT(A)). Pathologic complete response (PCR) NMA demonstrated significant PCR improvement with chemotherapy regimens containing programmed cell death protein-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors (PD-1i/PD-L1i) and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Combined analysis considering both the ORR and safety highlighted CT(A)'s efficacy and toxicity balance.

CONCLUSIONS

CT(A) and CT showed improved ORR compared with alternative regimens. CT(A) combined with PD-1/PD-L1 or PARP inhibitors significantly increased PCR rates. Comprehensive assessment of both ORR and safety indicated that CT(A) represents an optimal neoadjuvant therapy for HR+/HER2- breast cancer, whereas AI + CDK4/6 inhibitors rank solely behind chemotherapy.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024538948. International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) registration number INPLASY202440092.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with endocrine therapy against the backdrop of single neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, specifically in the context of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough literature search across several databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Weipu, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, adhering to the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA statement. Our specific focus was on identifying randomized controlled trials that directly compared the combined approach of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy with single chemotherapy or endocrine therapy in the context of treating HR+ breast cancer. Subsequently, we utilized statistical packages implemented in R software to perform comparative analyses of key clinical indicators, encompassing the complete response, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials, involving 1359 patients, all of whom met our inclusion criteria and were thus included in our comprehensive analysis. Within this cohort, 688 patients (50.63%) administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with endocrine therapy (NCET), 642 patients (47.24%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) alone, while 29 patients (2.13%) underwent neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) alone. The results of our meta-analysis revealed that NCET exhibited a statistically significant enhancement in both ORR and pCR (P < .05). Nonetheless, when compared to NCT or NET, NCET did not yield a significant impact on complete response, disease control rate, and safety (P > .05). In addition, NCET demonstrated a significant improvement in ORR among patients with HR+, HER2-negative breast cancer (P < .05). However, it was also linked to a heightened incidence of serious adverse reactions within this particular patient subgroup (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy stands out as a significant contributor to enhancing the ORR and pCR for HR+ breast cancer patients. For breast cancer patients with HER2- status, NCET demonstrates a remarkable improvement in ORR but is also associated with the emergence of adverse reactions.

Role of Exemestane in the Treatment of Estrogen-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer diagnosed among women worldwide with an estimated 2.3 million new cases every year. Almost two-thirds of all patients with BC have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors. In this review, the clinical evidence of exemestane in different treatment settings in ER+ BC is presented and summarized.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search strategy with the keywords "breast cancer [MeSH Terms]" AND "exemestane [Title/Abstract]" was devised and a search was performed in PubMed.

RESULTS

The efficacy of exemestane in different treatment settings has been established by numerous clinical studies. Exemestane is recommended as an adjuvant treatment in postmenopausal women previously treated with tamoxifen in trials comparing 5 years of tamoxifen with 2-3 years of tamoxifen combined with 2-3 years of exemestane, which proved that treatment with exemestane provided better survival outcomes. Similarly, exemestane could be considered as a safe treatment option for neoadjuvant treatment, prevention of chemotherapy, and treatment of advanced BC either alone or in combination with other targeted therapy drugs in both pre- and postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Exemestane could be considered as a reasonable therapeutic option in the treatment of ER+ BC at any stage in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Transcriptional co-activators YAP/TAZ: Potential therapeutic targets for metastatic breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. Although routine and targeted therapies have improved the survival rate, there are still considerable challenges in the treatment of breast cancer. Metastasis is the leading cause of death in patients diagnosed with breast cancer. Yes-associated protein (YAP) and/or PDZ binding motif (TAZ) are usually abnormally activated in breast cancer leading to a variety of effects on tumour promotion, such as epithelial-mesenchymal transition, cancer stem cell production and drug-resistance. The abnormal activation of YAP/TAZ can affect metastasis-related processes and promote cancer progression and metastasis by interacting with some metastasis-related factors and pathways. In this article, we summarise the evidence that YAP/TAZ regulates breast cancer metastasis, its post-translational modification mechanisms, and the latest advances in the treatment of YAP/TAZ-related breast cancer metastasis, besides providing a new strategy of YAP/TAZ-based treatment of human breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant exemestane or exemestane plus docetaxel and cyclophosphamide tailored by clinicopathological response to 12 weeks' exemestane exposure in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: A multicenter, open-label, phase II study

Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of initial neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with exemestane alone followed by tailored treatment, either continued exemestane monotherapy or exemestane plus docetaxel–cyclophosphamide (TC) combination therapy, in postmenopausal patients with primary invasive estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, stage I‐IIIA breast cancer and Ki67 labeling index ≤30%. In this open‐label phase II study, patients initially received exemestane 25 mg/d for 12 weeks. Responders were defined as patients who achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR) with Ki67 labeling index ≤5% after treatment, or stable disease with Ki67 labeling index ≤5% both before and after treatment. For the subsequent 12 weeks, exemestane monotherapy was continued for responders (group A), whereas nonresponders received exemestane plus four cycles of TC (docetaxel 75 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² every 3 weeks) (group B). Clinical response rate (ie the proportion of patients with CR or PR) at 24 weeks was the primary endpoint. Of 64 patients provisionally enrolled between December 2010 and May 2016, 58 (median age 60 years) started the study treatment. Five patients discontinued treatment in the initial exemestane monotherapy period, and 39 completed the study treatment. Clinical response rates at 8‐12 and 24 weeks were 71% (10/14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.9%‐91.6%) and 57% (8/14, 95% CI 28.9%‐82.3%), respectively, in group A, and 16% (4/25, 95% CI 4.5%‐36.1%) and 56% (14/25, 95% CI 34.9%‐75.6%), respectively, in group B. Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 8% (1/15) and 53% (20/38) in group A and group B, respectively. The tailored treatment maintained the favorable clinical response to exemestane alone in responders and improved clinical response in nonresponders.

Trial number

UMIN000004752 (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry).