Estrogen-receptor-directed neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: results of a randomised trial using formestane and methotrexate, mitozantrone and mitomycin C (MMM) chemotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: Pathologic response rates but not tumor size, has an independent prognostic impact on survival

AIM

We investigated the pathologic complete response rates (pCR) and survival outcomes of early breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) over 14 years at a French comprehensive cancer center and reported pCR and survival outcomes by tumor subtypes and size.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2018, 1150 patients receiving NAC were identified. Correlations between cT stage, breast tumor response, axillary lymph node response, pCR, surgery, and outcomes were assessed. pCR was defined as (ypT0/ypTis) and (ypN0/pN0sn).

RESULTS

A pCR was reached in 31.7% (365/1150) of patients and was strongly associated with tumor subtypes, but not with tumor size (pretreatment cT category). Luminal-B Her2-negative and triple-negative (TN) subtypes, cN1 status, older age, and no-pCR had an independent negative prognostic value. Overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were not significantly different for cT0-1 compared to cT2 stages. In Cox-model adjusted on in-breast pCR and pN status, ypN1 had a strong negative impact (OS, RFS, and MFS: HR = 3.153, 4.677, and 6.133, respectively), higher than no in-breast pCR (HR = 2.369, 2.252, and 2.323). A negative impact of no pCR on OS was observed for cN0 patients and TN tumors (HR = 4.972) or HER2-positive tumors (HR = 11.706), as well as in Luminal-B Her2-negative tumors on MFS (HR = 2.223) and for Luminal-A on RFS (HR = 4.465) and MFS (HR = 4.185).

CONCLUSION

Achievement of pCR, but not tumor size (pretreatment cT category), has an independent prognostic impact on survival. These results suggest potential NAC benefits in patients with small tumors (<2 cm), even in absence of clinically suspicious lymph nodes. Residual lymph node disease after NAC is the most powerful adverse prognostic factor.

Changing the role of pCR in breast cancer treatment - an unjustifiable interpretation of a good prognostic factor as a "factor for a good prognosis"

Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) of early breast cancer (EBC) has been recognized as a good prognostic factor in the treatment of breast cancer because of its significant correlation with long-term disease outcome. Based on this correlation, pCR has been accepted by health authorities (FDA, EMA) as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials for accelerated drug approval. Moreover, in recent years, we have observed a tendency to treat pCR in routine clinical practice as a primary therapeutic target rather than just one of the pieces of information obtained from clinical trials. These trends in routine clinical practice are the result of recommendations in treatment guidelines, such as the ESMO recommendation "…to deliver all planned (neoadjuvant) treatment without unnecessary breaks, i.e. without dividing it into preoperative and postoperative periods, irrespective of the magnitude of tumor response", because "…this will increase the probability of achieving pCR, which is a proven factor for a good prognosis…". We hypothesize that the above recommendations and trends in routine clinical practice are the consequences of misunderstanding regarding the concept of pCR, which has led to a shift in its importance from a prognostic factor to a desired treatment outcome. The origin of this misunderstanding could be a strong subconscious incentive to achieve pCR, as patients who achieved pCR after NAST had a better long-term outcome compared with those who did not. In this paper, we attempt to prove our hypothesis. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the therapeutic effects of NAST and adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) in EBC to determine whether pCR, as a phenomenon that can only be achieved at NAST, improves prognosis per se. We used published papers as a source of data, which had a decisive influence on the formation of the modern attitude towards EBC therapy. We were unable to find any evidence supporting the use of pCR as a desired therapeutic goal because NAST (reinforced by pCR) was never demonstrated to be superior to AST in any context.

Evaluating the Fragility of Long-Term Outcomes for Neoadjuvant versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy Prescription in Early Breast Cancer: Pooled Data from 10 Randomised Clinical Trials

Introduction

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) report similar outcomes following neoadjuvant (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in breast cancer. “Fragility Indices” (FI) test significance reversal reported in RCTs.

Aim

To evaluate the FI of findings from RCTs assessing outcomes of NAC and AC.

Methods

A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. RCTs of interest were identified and data pooled. Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate FI for reversal of statistical significance for dichotomous outcomes. “Fragility Quotient” (FQ) was calculated by division of the calculated FI by the sample size.

Results

Ten RCTs including 4928 patients. Mean follow-up was 8.2 years. For breast conservation surgery (BCS), the FI was 500 and FQ was 0.10781. For local recurrence (LR), the FI was 42 and FQ was 0.00852. FI and FQ varied for LR at 0–4 years (FI: 9), 5–9 years (FI: 2), 10–14 years (FI: 4), and 15+ years (FI: 3). Regarding distant recurrence (DR), the FI was 13 and FQ was 0.00264. FI and FQ trended downwards over time: 0–4 years (FI: 56), 5–9 years (FI: 18), 10–14 years (FI: 4), and 15+ years (FI: 4). For breast-cancer-specific mortality (BCSM), the overall FI was 51 and FQ was 0.01035. FI and FQ varied for BCSM at 0–4 years (FI: 5), 5–9 years (FI: 19), 10–14 years (FI: 8), and 15+ years (FI: 5). For overall survival (OS), the FI was 17 and FQ was 0.00345. FI and FQ were calculated with respect to OS at 0–4 years (FI: 19), 5–9 years (FI: 17), 10–14 years (FI: 19), and 15+ years (FI: 1).

Conclusion

FIs comparing survival following NAC and AC were of moderate-to-high fragility, indicating weak statistical significance. BCS eligibility following NAC was of low fragility, ratifying the oncological and surgical safety of NAC versus AC.

Level of Evidence

Systematic Review of Level I Randomised Control Trials.

Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The present systematic review and meta-analysis critically assessed the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nACT) in comparison to ACT in breast cancer patients in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing NACT with ACT in breast cancer patients were identified through Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials on January 21, 2016. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effects or random-effects method depending on heterogeneity (I 2). Grading of the evidences was also done. Subgroup meta-analysis on the basis of total preoperative chemotherapy or sandwich chemotherapy was also performed. Results: The present meta-analysis shows increased breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rate (n = 9, risk ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.19 [1.03–1.37]) with NACT. Further, NACT was found equally effective regarding overall survival (n = 15, hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.89–1.08]), disease-free survival (DFS) (n = 14, HR [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.86–1.18]), and distant metastasis (n = 13, HR [95% CI] = 0.97 [0.82–1.16]). Although locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate was noted to be significantly higher in NACT group (n = 15, HR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.06–1.43]), its significance disappeared (n = 13, HR [95% CI] = 1.17 [0.98–1.40]) by excluding the trials where surgery was not provided for patients with complete tumor response. After excluding such trials, preoperative NACT was associated with increased BCS with similar LRR in ACT group. Discussion: NACT has no major impact on breast cancer survival. However, it is associated with increased BCS rates. NACT downgrades tumor size facilitating more BCSs without increasing LRR. The evidences were graded for all outcomes as high except DFS and BCS as moderate.

Post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease in breast cancer: state of the art and perspectives

Achieving a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment is associated with improved prognosis in breast cancer. The CREATE-X trial demonstrated a significant survival improvement with capecitabine in patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the KATHERINE trial showed a significant benefit of trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive patients who did not achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment, creating interesting alternatives of post-neoadjuvant treatments for high-risk patients. New agents are arising as therapeutic options for metastatic breast cancer such as the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors and the immune-checkpoint inhibitors, but none has been incorporated into the post-neoadjuvant setting so far. Evolving techniques such as next-generation sequencing and gene expression profiles have improved our knowledge regarding the biology of residual disease, and also on the mechanisms involved in treatment resistance. The present manuscript reviews the current available strategies, the ongoing trials, the potential biomarker-guided approaches and the perspectives for the post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer.

Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable breast cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) increases breast conservation rates in patients with resectable breast cancer at the associated cost of higher locoregional recurrence rates; however, the magnitude of the survival benefits of NAC for these patients remains undefined. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the survival benefit of NAC versus postoperative chemotherapy by conducting an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The authors searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese biomedical literature database, and Chinese Scientific Journals full-text database from their inception to December 2016. The authors identified relevant RCTs that compared NAC with postoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of operable breast cancer. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

A total of 21 citations representing 16 unique studies were eligible. There were 787 deaths among 2794 patients assigned to NAC groups and 816 deaths among 2799 patients assigned to adjuvant chemotherapy groups. A meta-analysis of data indicated that there was no significant benefit in terms of OS ([hazard ratio [HR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.13, P = .51) and RFS (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93-1.10, P = .80) between the NAC and postoperative chemotherapy groups. The pooled HR estimate for OS was not influenced by NAC cycles, the total number of chemotherapy cycles, administration of tamoxifen, administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, or type of NAC regimen. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR estimate for RFS was influenced by anthracycline-containing regimens. Patients with a pathological complete response had superior survival outcomes compared with patients who had residual disease.

CONCLUSION

The survival benefits for patients with operable breast cancer who received either NAC or adjuvant chemotherapy based on anthracycline regimens were comparable.

Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for early breast cancer can make breast-conserving surgery more feasible and might be more likely to eradicate micrometastatic disease than might the same chemotherapy given after surgery. We investigated the long-term benefits and risks of NACT and the influence of tumour characteristics on outcome with a collaborative meta-analysis of individual patient data from relevant randomised trials.

METHODS

We obtained information about prerandomisation tumour characteristics, clinical tumour response, surgery, recurrence, and mortality for 4756 women in ten randomised trials in early breast cancer that began before 2005 and compared NACT with the same chemotherapy given postoperatively. Primary outcomes were tumour response, extent of local therapy, local and distant recurrence, breast cancer death, and overall mortality. Analyses by intention-to-treat used standard regression (for response and frequency of breast-conserving therapy) and log-rank methods (for recurrence and mortality).

FINDINGS

Patients entered the trials from 1983 to 2002 and median follow-up was 9 years (IQR 5-14), with the last follow-up in 2013. Most chemotherapy was anthracycline based (3838 [81%] of 4756 women). More than two thirds (1349 [69%] of 1947) of women allocated NACT had a complete or partial clinical response. Patients allocated NACT had an increased frequency of breast-conserving therapy (1504 [65%] of 2320 treated with NACT vs 1135 [49%] of 2318 treated with adjuvant chemotherapy). NACT was associated with more frequent local recurrence than was adjuvant chemotherapy: the 15 year local recurrence was 21·4% for NACT versus 15·9% for adjuvant chemotherapy (5·5% increase [95% CI 2·4-8·6]; rate ratio 1·37 [95% CI 1·17-1·61]; p=0·0001). No significant difference between NACT and adjuvant chemotherapy was noted for distant recurrence (15 year risk 38·2% for NACT vs 38·0% for adjuvant chemotherapy; rate ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·92-1·14]; p=0·66), breast cancer mortality (34·4% vs 33·7%; 1·06 [0·95-1·18]; p=0·31), or death from any cause (40·9% vs 41·2%; 1·04 [0·94-1·15]; p=0·45).

INTERPRETATION

Tumours downsized by NACT might have higher local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy than might tumours of the same dimensions in women who have not received NACT. Strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in tumours downsized by NACT should be considered-eg, careful tumour localisation, detailed pathological assessment, and appropriate radiotherapy.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department of Health.

Short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Estrogen receptor positive (ER⁺) breast cancer (BC) is highly hormonal therapy-responsive. The choice between neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate benefits and safety of NHT compared with NCT for operable BC patients. Areas covered: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing NHT and NCT for treatment of invasive and immunohistochemically ER⁺ BC. Major outcomes were clinical response rate, pathologic complete response (pCR), operation methods, recurrence, and adverse events. Five RCTs were included. The clinical response rates between NHT and NCT were not statistically different overall, or in ER-rich patients or postmenopausal women. Compared with NCT, NHT had a significant reduction of complete response rate and an increment in progressive disease rate. NHT increased rates of breast conserving surgery (BCS) and wide local excision (WLE) compared with NCT. All the other parameters were comparable. Patients receiving NHT had better tolerance than those undergoing NCT. Expert commentary: When treating BC, NHT was well tolerated, and contributed to more BCS and WLE cases, especially in ER-rich postmenopausal patients. While for those who are eligible for chemotherapy, NCT might be better recommended due to higher response rates.

Breast cancer in adolescent and young adult women

Breast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancy among adolescent and young adult (AYA) women, accounting for approximately 14% of all AYA cancer diagnoses and 7% of all breast cancer. Breast cancer in AYA women is believed to represent a more biologically aggressive disease, but aside from commonly known hereditary predispositions, little is still known about the underlying molecular genetic causes. This review examines the current trends of breast cancer in AYA women as they relate to clinical, social, genetic, and molecular pathologic characteristics. We highlight existing trends, treatment and imaging approaches, and health burdens as they relate to breast cancer in AYA women and provide a discussion on ways to help improve the overall management of this breast cancer cohort.

Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in breast cancer: analysis of daily practice in large cancer center to facilitate decision making

BACKGROUND

To examine outcomes of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in daily practice to inform decision making.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected 204 patients who received neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with T2 (≥30 mm) or T3 tumors, examining subsequent breast-sparing surgery and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy was administered for 7.3 months (median) and breast-sparing surgery was achievable in 53% of patients. Smaller initial tumor size and modified version of the Scarff-Bloom and Richardson grades 1 to 2 were associated with breast-sparing surgery. Disease progression during treatment was 6.9%; actuarial risk of local relapse was 3% at 5 years and 15% at 10 years. Five- and 10-year metastasis relapse-free survival was 78% and 63%, respectively. Grade 3, negative progesterone receptors, and absence or slow response to neoadjuvant therapy were associated prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

These daily practice data provide important information about feasibility, efficacy, and long-term results of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and can be used to inform patients for decision making between mastectomy and endocrine induction therapy.

Hormonal therapies in young breast cancer patients: when, what and for how long?

Breast cancer in young women (<40 years) is a rare and complex clinical and psychosocial condition, which deserves multidisciplinary and personalized approaches. In young women with hormone-receptor positive disease, 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, with or without ovarian suppression/ablation, is considered the standard endocrine therapy. The definitive role of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors has still to be elucidated: the upcoming results of the Tamoxifen and EXemestane Trial (TEXT) and Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trials will help understanding if we can widen our current endocrine therapeutic options. The optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy in young women also remains an unresolved issue. The recently reported results of the ATLAS and aTToM trials represent the first evidence of a beneficial effect of extended endocrine therapy in premenopausal women and provide an important opportunity in high-risk young patients. In the metastatic setting, endocrine therapy should be the preferred choice for endocrine responsive disease, unless there is evidence of endocrine resistance or need for rapid disease and/or symptom control. Tamoxifen in combination with ovarian suppression/ablation remains the 1st-line endocrine therapy of choice. Aromatase inhibitors in combination with ovarian suppression/ablation can be considered after progression on tamoxifen and ovarian suppression/ablation. Fulvestrant has not yet been studied in pre-menopausal women. Specific age-related treatment side effects (i.e., menopausal symptoms, change in body image and weight gain, cognitive function impairment, fertility damage/preservation, long-term organ dysfunction, sexuality) and the social impact of diagnosis and treatment (i.e., job discrimination, family management) should be carefully addressed when planning long-lasting endocrine therapies in young women with hormone-receptor positive early and advanced breast cancer.

Impact of chemotherapy sequencing on local-regional failure risk in breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate long-term local-regional control rates after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for patients undergoing surgery before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

There were 2983 patients who underwent segmental mastectomy with whole-breast irradiation from 1987 to 2005. Clinicopathological and outcome data were reviewed, and comparisons were made between those undergoing surgery before and those undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

There were 2331 patients (78%) who underwent surgery first and 652 (22%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy had more advanced disease at baseline and more adverse clinicopathological features. The 5- and 10-year local-regional recurrence (LRR)-free survival rates were 97% [95% confidence interval (CI), 96-98) and 94% (95% CI, 93-95) for surgery first and 93% (95% CI, 91-95) and 90% (95% CI, 87-93) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001). However, there were no differences in LRR-free survival rates when comparing the presenting clinical stage (P = NS). Of 607 patients presenting with clinical stage II/III disease, chemotherapy downstaged 313 patients (52%) to pathological stage 0/I disease; 294 (48%) had residual stage II/III disease. In multivariate analysis, an age less than 50 years, clinical stage III, grade 3, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, estrogen receptor-positive disease without receipt of endocrine therapy, lymphovascular invasion, multifocal disease on pathology, and close/positive margins were associated with LRR. Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significant when added to the model. Adjusting for adverse factors, there were no differences in LRR between patients who underwent surgery before and those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

LRR after BCT is driven by tumor biology and disease stage. Appropriately selected patients can achieve high rates of local-regional control with BCT with either upfront surgery or surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Primary chemo-radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The best management of large, diffuse or inflammatory breast cancers is uncertain and the place of radiotherapy and/or surgery is not clearly defined.

METHODS

A cohort of 123 patients with non-metastatic locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer 3 cm or more in diameter or T4, was treated between 1989 and 2006. All patients received primary chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, 40 Gy in 15 fractions with 10 Gy boost. Patients with ER positive tumours received Tamoxifen. Assessment was carried out 8 weeks post-treatment and surgery was reserved for residual or recurrent disease.

RESULTS

For each stage there were T2/3: 63, T4b: 31 and T4d: 29 patients. 80 had complete clinical response (65%) but 18 patients were never free of inoperable local disease. 25 patients had residual operable disease at assessment and 12 patients who initially had a complete response developed operable local recurrence (LR). 37 Patients (30%) had surgery at a mean of 15 months post diagnosis. At 5 years, overall survival (OS) of the two surgical groups was not significantly different from those 68 patients who had complete remission without surgery, p=0.218, HR 1.46 (0.80-2.55). Surgery as an independent variable to predict survival was not significant on a Cox proportional hazards model (p=0.97). LR in the surgical groups was 13.5% vs 17.5% in the non-surgical patients. The median OS was 64.5 months and disease-free survival (DFS) was 52.5 months. 5-Year OS was 54% and DFS survival 43%.

CONCLUSION

In patients with a complete or partial response to chemo-radiotherapy for locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, reserving surgery for those with residual or recurrent local disease did not appear to compromise survival. This finding would support examination of this treatment strategy by a randomised controlled trial.

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in primary breast cancer: indications and use as a research tool

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy has been increasingly employed in clinical practice to improve surgical options for postmenopausal women with bulky hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Recent studies indicate that tumour response in this setting may predict long-term outcome of patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy, which argues for its broader application in treating hormone receptor-positive disease. From the research perspective, neoadjuvant endocrine therapy provides a unique opportunity for studies of endocrine responsiveness and the development of novel therapeutic agents.

Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: Focus on chemotherapy and biological targeted treatments' armamentarium

Despite progress achieved in diagnosis and therapy in recent years, locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) remains a major clinical issue. Biological characteristics and clinical behavior varies widely, ranging from indolent to locally aggressive or generalized disease. In depth knowledge of biology of cancer progression and cancer could lead to the identification of tumor characteristics associated with outcome. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) integrated into a multimodality program is nowadays the established treatment in LABC. Although our efforts in this research task are ongoing, of special clinical interest is the integration of anti-HER2 and other biological therapies, as anti-angiogenesis targeted treatments, that may further improve the long term control of LABC. Clinical management of LABC could be modified based on molecular biology and an approach tailored to each patient will optimize therapy.

Pure and predominantly pure intralymphatic breast carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an unusual and adverse pattern of residual disease

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care for patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Patients who achieve a pathologic complete response have a more favorable outcome than those who do not; however, a standard system for classifying residual disease has not been adopted. Various definitions of complete response exist, some of which allow for minimal residual invasive or in situ carcinoma. The pattern of residual carcinoma restricted to lymphatic spaces without stromal invasion, herein called pure intralymphatic carcinoma, has not been well addressed. Neither has the pattern of minimal residual stromal invasive cancer accompanied by an extensive intralymphatic component, herein called predominantly pure intralymphatic carcinoma. We report the incidence, clinicopathologic features, and clinical significance of pure and predominantly pure intralymphatic carcinoma in a cohort of 146 neoadjuvant-treated breast cancer patients. We also evaluate the use of the immunohistochemical lymphatic marker D2-40 in these tissues exposed to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Six patients (4%) had residual pure intralymphatic carcinoma. No gross abnormalities were present in the mastectomy specimens except for 1 case that had a discrete mass, corresponding to residual in situ carcinoma. Residual intralymphatic tumor size ranged from 0.2 to 6 cm. All but one had residual positive lymph nodes. Residual predominantly pure intralymphatic carcinoma was found in 5/146 (4%) patients. A discrete gross mass was observed in 3/5 specimens. Whereas residual stromal invasive carcinoma ranged in size from 0.1 to 1.8 cm, the intralymphatic component ranged from 6 to 9.3 cm. All had residual positive lymph nodes. D2-40 adequately marked lymphatic endothelium in all cases tested. Death occurred in 6/11 (55%) versus 17/135 (13%) patients with or without pure/predominantly pure intralymphatic carcinoma, respectively. After controlling for tumor stage, the presence of either of these residual intralymphatic patterns was associated with a 3-fold increase in death (Cox proportional hazards ratio=3.59, 95% confidence interval, 1.29, 9.99, P=0.014). Elevated risk for disease progression was also observed but this was not statistically significant. We conclude that pure/predominantly pure intralymphatic carcinoma is a clinically significant pattern of residual disease. This may be an underrecognized pattern because of the discordance between gross and microscopic findings and because of challenges in diagnosing intralymphatic carcinoma. D2-40 immunostaining is useful in this setting. Current staging criteria should be clarified to define whether extensive intralymphatic tumor should be incorporated in tumor stage assignment.

Surgical issues and preoperative systemic therapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment approach for patients with locally advanced breast cancer, where primary disease downstaging clears improves operability. Previously unresectable disease may then be controlled by mastectomy, and some patients may even become eligible for lumpectomy. The disease downstaging benefits as well as the ability to determine chemosensitivity, have motivated expanded applications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to include selected cases of early-stage breast cancer. In this setting, many women will become improved candidates for breast conservation surgery performed via smaller-volume lumpectomies. Optimal utilization of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy approach requires special attention by the surgeon regarding diagnostic biopsies (percutaneous needle biopsies are preferred); preoperative planning (insertion of radio-opaque clips to mark tumor bed prior to completion of chemotherapy response; careful imaging to determine extent of disease); and final surgical decision-making (including comprehensive preoperative imaging to decide between lumpectomy and mastectomy).

Antitumour and biological effects of letrozole and GnRH analogue as primary therapy in premenopausal women with ER and PgR positive locally advanced operable breast cancer

Preoperative endocrine therapy is effective in postmenopausal patients with breast cancers expressing oestrogen receptor. We investigated the activity of primary therapy with letrozole in combination with GnRH analogue in premenopausal women with T2-T4 N0-N2 breast cancer, whose tumours expressed oestrogen and progesterone receptors. We measured the expression of molecular factors involved in responsiveness to endocrine agents including ERalpha, EGFR, HER2, MAP kinases (and phosphorylated forms) ER-beta1, both at initial biopsy and at the time of surgery. Thirty-five patients were included and 32 patients were evaluable for response. Sixteen patients (50%, 95% CI 32-68%) obtained a partial response, 16 patients were stable. One patient showed pathological complete response (3%, 95% CI 0-16%). Response was significantly associated with younger age (P<0.05) and a longer duration of treatment (P<0.05). Treatment significantly decreased ERalpha-p-Ser(118) and upregulated ER-beta1, independently of response. No or negligible overexpression of EGFR was observed at baseline or after treatment in this population. Preoperative letrozole and GnRH analogue are effective in premenopausal women. A biological response in terms of downregulation of phosphorylated ERalpha was observed in all patients. Future investigations might focus on treatments of longer duration.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer can avoid mastectomy by shrinkage of tumour volume. This review assesses the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on clinical outcome.

Methods

All randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer were reviewed systematically and meta-analyses were performed.

Results

Fourteen studies randomizing 5500 women were eligible for analysis. Overall survival was equivalent in both groups. In the neoadjuvant group, the mastectomy rate was lower (relative risk 0·71 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·67 to 0·75)) without hampering local control (hazard ratio 1·12 (95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·37)). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated fewer adverse effects.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an established treatment option for early breast cancer.

Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently, preoperative chemotherapy is the standard of care in locally advanced breast cancer to achieve local tumour downsizing in order to make surgery possible. Since the early 1980s, the role of preoperative chemotherapy in early stage (or operable) breast cancer has been the subject of study. Potential advantages are early introduction of systemic therapy, determination of chemosensitivity, reduction of tumour volume and downstaging of surgical requirement. Concerns exist about local control after downsized surgery and the delay of local treatment in patients with tumours resistant to chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy in women with operable breast cancer when compared to postoperative chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Specialised Register maintained by the Editorial Base of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched on 4th of August 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing preoperative chemotherapy with postoperative in women with operable breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality, and data were extracted by two independent review authors. Hazard ratios were derived for time-to-event outcomes directly or indirectly using the methods described by Parmar. Relative risks were derived for dichotomous outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 eligible studies which randomised a total of 5,500 women. Median follow-up ranged from 18 to 124 months. Eight studies described a satisfactory method of randomisation.Data, based on 1139 estimated deaths in 4620 women available for analysis, show equivalent overall survival rates with a HR of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.09; p, 0.67; no heterogeneity). Preoperative chemotherapy increases breast conservation rates, yet at the associated cost of increased loco regional recurrence rates. However, this rate was not increased as long as surgery remains part of the treatment even after complete tumour regression (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.37; p, 0.25; no heterogeneity. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with fewer adverse effects. Pathological complete response is associated with better survival than residual disease (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p, < 10-4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests safe application of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer in order to down-stage surgical requirement, to evaluate chemosensitivity and to facilitate translational research.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy and the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is standard management for women who have locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, but can be applied to all women who may require postoperative chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Disease-free survival and overall survival are equivalent between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and patients treated with the same regimen postoperatively. Preoperative chemotherapy can offer women less morbid surgical treatment by down-staging both the primary breast tumor and axillary metastases. Finally, response to chemotherapy can inform clinicians of the chemosensitivity of the tumor, and can predict long-term outcome for women who have breast cancer.

Presurgical therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The standard approach for managing patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists of a cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by immunotherapy, chemotherapy or a targeted agent. Optimal timing of surgery and systemic therapy is not known, and has not been researched. A number of questions arise. First, in the era of antivascular therapy, is cytoreductive nephrectomy a necessity? Second, is it possible that pretreatment with systemic therapy prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy improves surgical outcome and survival? Third, which agents are best suited for an integration of surgery with systemic therapy, both in the metastatic and the nonmetastatic setting? This review will address each of these questions and summarize ongoing trials that are designed to provide some of the answers.

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer

The use of endocrine therapy is well established as a primary treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. However, despite the current popularity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable tumours, there is relatively little published evidence for pre-operative endocrine therapy in operable disease, particularly outside of the elderly population. The wider use of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) has encouraged studies that compare the efficacy of AIs with tamoxifen in the neoadjuvant setting, but there remains a lack of comparison of neoadjuvant with adjuvant endocrine therapies. This review discusses the current evidence regarding primary endocrine therapy, along with the factors involved in choosing appropriate patients for neoadjuvant therapy and the current opinions on length of treatment time and measurement of response prior to surgery.

Primary therapy with ECF in combination with a GnRH analog in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive T2–T4 breast cancer

Patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors less often show a pathological complete response (pCR) than do those with hormone receptor-negative tumors. The addition of endocrine therapies may improve the clinical benefits of primary therapies in these patients. We investigated the efficacy of the epirubicin+cisplatin+fluorouracil (ECF) as continuous infusion) regimen in association with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog in 36 premenopausal women with T2-T4a-d N0-2 M0 ER and/or PgR-positive breast cancer. Median age was 39.5 years (range 26-53). Clinical response (complete or partial) was observed in 27 out of 36 patients (75% 95% CI 57.8-87.9%) and a pCR was observed in four patients (11%). Nine (25%) patients had stable disease and no progression was observed. Twenty-one patients (58%) were submitted for breast-conserving surgery and 15 had a radical mastectomy. No baseline clinical and biological characteristics significantly correlated with response. Thirty out of 31 patients evaluable for endocrine assessment had documented ovarian suppression, which occurred after a median of 28 days (range 20-43). We conclude that the combination of ECF and a GnRH analog is associated with a high response rate in the primary treatment of breast cancer. Further studies combining chemotherapy and endocrine agents are warranted in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer: an overview and review of recent clinical trials

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is long established as part of the multi-modality management of locally advanced breast cancer or inflammatory breast cancer, leading to significantly improved outcome. Numerous recent studies have compared the use of anthracycline-based NAC with adjuvant chemotherapy in earlier-stage disease, and have shown equivalent disease-free and overall survival rates with increased breast conservation rates. These studies have also shown that a pathological complete response after NAC is associated with improved long-term outcome. More recently, the taxanes have been introduced into clinical trials of NAC with increased overall and pCR rates. However, there is no evidence that the addition of taxanes to neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy significantly improves long-term disease free survival or overall survival. This paper reviews these trials, as well as trials of dose-dense and trastuzumab-containing NAC regimens. The review discusses the potential for NAC to replace prolonged adjuvant trials in the assessment of new therapeutic agents (using pathological complete response as a surrogate for long-term outcome), to be used as an in vivo chemosensitivity assay to guide further treatment, and to identify molecular markers that correlate with tumour sensitivity or resistance to chemotherapeutic agents so that the treatment of patients can be individualised.

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Interest in the use of preoperative systemic treatment in the management of breast cancer has increased because such neoadjuvant therapy appears to reduce the extent of local surgery required. We compared the clinical end points of patients with breast cancer treated preoperatively with systemic therapy (neoadjuvant therapy) and of those treated postoperatively with the same regimen (adjuvant therapy) in a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

METHODS

We evaluated nine randomized studies, including a total of 3946 patients with breast cancer, that compared neoadjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy regardless of what additional surgery and/or radiation treatment was used. Fixed and random effects methods were used to combine data. Primary outcomes were death, disease progression, distant disease recurrence, and loco-regional disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were local response and conservative local treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We found no statistically or clinically significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and adjuvant therapy arms associated with death (summary risk ratio [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.12), disease progression (summary RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.07), or distant disease recurrence (summary RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.06). However, neoadjuvant therapy was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of loco-regional disease recurrences (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.43), compared with adjuvant therapy, especially in trials where more patients in the neoadjuvant, than the adjuvant, arm received radiation therapy without surgery (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.10). Across trials, we observed heterogeneity in the rates of complete clinical response (range = 7%-65%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), pathologic response (range = 4%-29%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), and adoption of conservative local treatment (range = 28%-89% in neoadjuvant arms, P for heterogeneity of <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy was apparently equivalent to adjuvant therapy in terms of survival and overall disease progression. Neoadjuvant therapy, compared with adjuvant therapy, was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of loco-regional recurrence when radiotherapy without surgery was adopted.

Aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapies in patients with breast cancer

There is increasing evidence that endocrine therapy has an important role in patients with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Several large meta-analyses have reinforced the value of both ovarian ablation and tamoxifen in improving survival. Over the past decade, aromatase inhibitors have become the treatment of choice for second-line therapy of metastatic breast cancer, and the third generation inhibitors have now an established reputation for good patient tolerability. Early studies indicated that aminoglutethimide/hydrocortisone could benefit postmenopausal patients with primary breast cancer, and in 2001, the ATAC study showed that the third generation aromatase inhibitor, anastrozole, seemed superior to tamoxifen in that anastrozole-treated patients had a longer disease-free survival. Other studies will report on the relative merits of the steroidal inhibitor exemestane as well as non-steroidal letrozole. The exact duration and sequencing of treatment, together with the long-term effects on bone are at present, unknown.