Long-term outcomes of a randomized, open-label, phase II study comparing cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple-negative or luminal B/HER2-negative breast cancer (GENEVIEVE).

BACKGROUND: The GENEVIEVE study, comparing neoadjuvant cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and luminal B/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC), previously reported significant differences in pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Effects on long-term outcome are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GENEVIEVE randomized patients with cT2-3, any cN or cT1, cN+/pNSLN+, centrally confirmed TNBC or luminal B/HER2-negative BC (latter defined as estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive and >14% Ki-67-stained cells) to receive either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 q3w for four cycles or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy was allowed in case of histologically proven invasive residuals as neoadjuvant treatment or after surgery as adjuvant treatment. Here we report the secondary endpoints invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 333 patients randomized, 74.7% and 83.2% completed treatment in the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 89.3 months (interquartile range 68.8-97.3 months), 80 iDFS events (43 after cabazitaxel and 37 after paclitaxel) and 47 deaths (23 after cabazitaxel and 24 after paclitaxel) were reported. IDFS rates were not significantly different between the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms after a 3-year (83.6% versus 85.0%) and 5-year follow-up (76.2% versus 78.3%) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.96, P = 0.294], respectively. DDFS rates at 3 years (88.6% versus 87.8%) and 5 years (82.1% versus 82.8%) for cabazitaxel and paclitaxel were comparable (HR = 1.15, P = 0.573). Similarly, OS rates at 3 years (91.6% versus 91.8%) and 5 years (89.2% versus 86.8%) showed no significant differences (HR = 1.05, P = 0.872). Subgroup analysis for TNBC and luminal B/HER2-negative BCs indicated no significant variations in 3- or 5-year iDFS, DDFS, or OS. CONCLUSIONS: The significant differences in pCR rates observed in both treatment arms did not significantly impact long-term outcomes for patients treated with cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in the GENEVIEVE trial.

Prognostic Factors for Local, Loco-regional and Systemic Recurrence in Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Aim: The risk of recurrence in breast cancer depends on factors such as treatment but also on the intrinsic subtype. We analyzed the risk factors for local, loco-regional and systemic recurrence, evaluated the differences and analyzed the risk of recurrence for different molecular subtypes. Material and Methods: A total of 3054 breast cancer patients who underwent surgery followed by adjuvant treatment at HSK hospital or Essen Mitte Hospital between 1998 and 2011 were analyzed. Based on immunohistochemical parameters, cancers were divided into the following subgroups: luminal A, luminal B (HER2-), luminal B (HER2+), HER2+ and TNBC (triple negative breast cancer). Results: 67 % of tumors were classified as luminal A, 13 % as luminal B (HER2-), 6 % as luminal B (HER2+), 3 % as HER2+ and 11 % as TNBC. After a median follow-up time of 6.6 years there were 100 local (3.3 %), 32 loco-regional (1 %) and 248 distant recurrences (8 %). Five-year recurrence-free survival for the overall patient collective was 92 %. On multivariate analysis, positive nodal status, TNBC subtype and absence of radiation therapy were found to be independent risk factors for all forms of recurrence. Age < 50 years, tumor size, luminal B (HER2-) subtype and breast-conserving therapy were additional risk factors for local recurrence. Compared to the luminal A subtype, the risk of systemic recurrence was higher for all other subtypes; additional risk factors for systemic recurrence were lymphatic invasion, absence of systemic therapy and mastectomy. Conclusion: Overall, the risk of local and loco-regional recurrence was low. In addition to nodal status, subgroup classification was found to be an important factor affecting the risk of recurrence.

Additional prognostic value of lymph node ratio over pN staging in different breast cancer subtypes based on the results of 1,656 patients.

PURPOSE: Although the impact of lymph node ratio (LNR: ratio of metastatic to resected LNs) in breast cancer (BC) has been investigated, its prognostic value in molecular subtypes remains unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of LNR compared to pN-stage in BC subtypes. PATIENTS/METHODS: We analyzed the impact of LNR and pN-stage on disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in 1,656 patients with primary BC who underwent primary axillary surgery (removal of ≥10 LNs) between 1998 and 2011. The cut-off points for LNR were previously published. Using immunohistochemical parameters tumors were grouped in luminalA, luminalB/HER2-, luminalB/HER2+, HER2+ and triple negative (TNBC). RESULTS: For the entire cohort 5/10-year DFS and OS rates were 88/77% and 88/75%, respectively. LNR and pN-stage were independent prognostic parameters for DFS/OS in multivariate analysis in the entire cohort and each molecular subgroup (p < 0.001). However, increasing LNR seemed to discriminated 10-year DFS slightly better than pN-stage in luminalA (intermediate/high LNR 65/44% versus pN2/pN3 71/53%), luminalB/HER2- (intermediate/high LNR 48/24% versus pN2/pN3 41/42%), and TNBC patients (intermediate/high LNR 49/24% versus pN2/pN3 56/33%). CONCLUSIONS: LNR is an important prognostic parameter for DFS/OS and might provide potentially more information than pN-stage in different molecular subtypes.

Surgical treatment of primary breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a standard treatment option for primary operable breast cancer when adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated. METHODS: This article reviews the use of NACT in breast cancer treatment. RESULTS: Pathological complete response (pCR) rates of up to 60 per cent have been reached for certain breast cancer subgroups. Patients achieving a pCR have a lower locoregional recurrence rate. Nevertheless, the rate of breast-conserving surgery seems to be stable at around 65-70 per cent, although more than 80 per cent of patients respond to NACT. The risk of local relapse does not appear to be higher after NACT, which supports the recommendation to operate within the new margins, as long as there is no tumour in the inked area of the surgical specimen. However, tumours do not shrink concentrically and the re-excision rate is higher after NACT. Mastectomy rates for lobular carcinomas remain high irrespective of tumour response. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the context of NACT has been studied in recent years, and it is not yet completely clear which type of axillary staging is the most suitable. SLNB before NACT in clinically node-negative patients has been the preferred option. However, this practice is currently changing, and it seems advisable to have the SLNB after NACT to reduce the risk of a false-negative SLNB. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients do benefit from NACT, especially those with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer, but surgical/local procedures need to be adapted.