ABSTRACT
The indications for preoperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer have changed over the past few years. In this article, the authors review the current data for use of neoadjuvant therapy in inoperable and operable settings. The evolution of various neoadjuvant regimens used in triple-negative breast cancer, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpressing/gene-amplified (HER2+) tumors, and hormone receptor positive breast cancer is discussed as well as the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tailoring adjuvant treatment.
Subject(s)
Neoadjuvant Therapy , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/surgery , ImmunotherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are several regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for HER2-negative operable breast cancer. To our knowledge, no trials have yet been performed comparing these regimens head to head. We performed a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of NCCN-recommended chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to February 2020. We included randomized clinical trials comparing adjuvant regimens in predominantly node-positive operable breast cancer patients. We compared (1) DDACT, (2) TCx4 cycles, (3) TAC, and (4) ACWKT. Common comparators were (5) AC, (6) ACT, and (7) ACD. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed quality of the studies. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as measures of treatment effects with AC as reference. We used Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models with noninformative priors for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Effectiveness was estimated by disease-free and overall survival using ORs. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Safety outcomes included febrile neutropenia. RESULTS: We identified 7 randomized controlled trials with 16,332 patients. TC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.71 [0.36-1.40]), TAC (0.77 [0.37-1.57]), ACWKT (0.68 [0.34-1.38]), and DDACT (0.72 [0.35-1.42]) were similar for overall survival. TC (0.64 [0.36-1.14]), TAC (0.67 [0.39-1.15]), ACWKT (0.63 [0.37-1.07]), and DDACT (0.59 [0.35-1.01]) had similar disease-free survival benefit. With regard to toxicity, TAC (2.67 [0.30-21.04]) had the highest odds of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The current generation of regimens are similar in efficacy. Given the lower toxicity of TCx4 comparatively, it is an acceptable alternative for lower-risk early-stage HER2-negative breast cancers.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/statistics & numerical data , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Neoplasm Staging , Network Meta-Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/drug therapyABSTRACT
Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) is a standard frontline treatment for medically fit follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. The safety and efficacy of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR induction has not been formally compared to observation for FL, resulting in disparate practice patterns. Prospective trials have shown benefit of MR after R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R-CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), yet recent data from the GALLIUM study comparing outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy with R or obinutuzumab (G) showed higher than anticipated fatal adverse events with BR/BG. In order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of MR after BR, we retrospectively collected data on 640 newly diagnosed patients treated with FL. We found that patients who achieved partial remission (PR) after ≥4 cycles of BR had improved duration of response (DOR) with MR vs. no maintenance, whereas those in complete remission did not. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort. In the entire study population, the known fatal adverse event rate after BR was 2·5% and did not significantly differ in those receiving MR versus no maintenance. [Correction added on 14 January 2019, after online publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected in this current version.] Within the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis, these data suggest that FL patients with a PR to BR experience prolongation of remission with MR with an acceptable safety profile.