The effect of prolonged neoadjuvant endocrine therapy on the efficacy of treatment with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no consensus on the required duration of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), yet there is no consistent conclusion on the factors influencing the efficacy of treatment with breast cancer after prolonged treatment. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of prolonged NET on the efficacy of patients with breast cancer and analyze the factors influencing the efficacy of treatment with breast cancer after the treatment duration is prolonged. METHODS: The case histories of 51 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received NET in our hospital from September 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received NET for over 12 months. The clinical efficacy and tumor size changes after treatment for six months and 12 months were compared, and the factors influencing the efficacy of treatment with breast cancer after patients' treatment duration was prolonged were analyzed. RESULTS: (1) Among the 51 patients, the objective remission rate (ORR) of NET, at T = 6 months was 21.6%, and the average tumor size was 15.52 ± 7.30 mm. The ORR of the NET at T = 12 months was 52.9%, and the average tumor size was 13.79 ± 7.43 mm. (2) After the treatment duration was prolonged, the clinical ORRs of patients with estrogen receptor (ER) (+) and progesterone receptor (PR) (+) were significantly higher than that of patients with ER (+) and PR (-) and patients with ER (-) and PR (+), which was (P < 0.05). (3) There was no significant difference between the patients' axillary lymph node status and the Ki67 expression before treatment and the clinical ORR after prolonged treatment, which was (P> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Prolonging the NET duration for patients with breast cancer can improve their clinical ORR and further reduce the tumor size, but patients' conditions should be closely monitored during the treatment process to prevent the progression of disease due to drug resistance. (2) The expression state of ER or PR may be used as a factor influencing the efficacy of treatment with breast cancer after prolonged treatment. (3) There was no significant effect on the patients' axillary lymph node status and the Ki67 expression before treatment on the clinical efficacy after prolonged treatment.

Application of triple evaluation method in predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the factors related to the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and find appropriate evaluation methods for evaluating the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy METHODS: A total of 143 patients with breast cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy at Baotou Cancer Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The chemotherapy regimen was mainly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for 1 week, docetaxel combined with carboplatin for 3 weeks, and was replaced with epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide after evaluation of disease progression. All HER2-positive patients were treated with simultaneous targeted therapy, including trastuzumab single-target therapy and trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab double-target therapy. Combined with physical examination, color Doppler ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a systematic evaluation system was initially established-the "triple evaluation method." A baseline evaluation was conducted before treatment. The efficacy was evaluated by physical examination and color Doppler every cycle, and the efficacy was evaluated by physical examination, color Doppler, and MRI every two cycles. RESULTS: The increase in ultrasonic blood flow after treatment could affect the efficacy of monitoring. The presence of two preoperative time-signal intensity curves is a therapeutically effective protective factor for inflow. The triple evaluation determined by physical examination, color Doppler ultrasound, and MRI in determining clinical efficacy is consistent with the effectiveness of the pathological gold standard. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic effect of neoadjuvant therapy can be better evaluated by combining clinical physical examination, color ultrasound, and nuclear magnetic resonance evaluation. The three methods complement each other to avoid the insufficient evaluation of a single method, which is convenient for most prefecty-level hospitals. Additionally, this method is simple, feasible, and suitable for promotion.