Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.

<h4>Purpose</h4>Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients frequently receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Only 50% will achieve pathological complete response (pCR). In this retrospective study, we evaluated TNBC outcomes with NAC vs. AC.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nusayba A Bagegni, Yu Tao, Foluso O Ademuyiwa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222358
id doaj-12002aaad22746949ab09519d03f9d51
record_format Article
spelling doaj-12002aaad22746949ab09519d03f9d512021-03-04T10:24:17ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01149e022235810.1371/journal.pone.0222358Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.Nusayba A BagegniYu TaoFoluso O Ademuyiwa<h4>Purpose</h4>Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients frequently receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Only 50% will achieve pathological complete response (pCR). In this retrospective study, we evaluated TNBC outcomes with NAC vs. AC.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with stages II and III TNBC treated with NAC or AC between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Baseline characteristics were compared with χ2 and two sample t tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were computed in patients treated with NAC or AC, and log-rank tests used to examine differences. Unadjusted analyses of trends in proportions over time were performed using Cochran-Armitage tests. Log-binomial models were applied to estimate relative risks of non-pCR following NAC.<h4>Results</h4>Of 19,151 patients, 5,621 (29.4%) received NAC, 13,530 (70.6%) received AC. NAC treated patients had worse OS compared to AC treated patients (73.4% vs. 76.8%; p<0.0001). pCR rate following NAC was 47.4%, and was associated with improved 5 year OS compared to non-pCR (86.2% vs. 62.3%; p<0.0001). In patients who received NAC, age, black race, clinical stage, diagnosis year, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score predicted non-pCR status. Use of NAC increased over the study period from 2010 to 2013 (27.8% - 31.2%; p = 0.0002).<h4>Conclusions</h4>NAC may be inferior to AC in TNBC, likely related to the high frequency of non-pCR following NAC. It is unclear if removing the primary tumor prior to chemotherapy will have a beneficial biologic impact on therapeutic efficacy. These data should be considered hypothesis-generating as it is possible that the findings are due to selection bias, as physicians may use NAC for TNBC patients with more advanced local disease. Although, NAC still has a role in TNBC, developing biomarkers to identify patients likely to achieve pCR and benefit from NAC is an urgent need.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222358
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nusayba A Bagegni
Yu Tao
Foluso O Ademuyiwa
spellingShingle Nusayba A Bagegni
Yu Tao
Foluso O Ademuyiwa
Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Nusayba A Bagegni
Yu Tao
Foluso O Ademuyiwa
author_sort Nusayba A Bagegni
title Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
title_short Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
title_full Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database.
title_sort clinical outcomes with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer: a report from the national cancer database.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description <h4>Purpose</h4>Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients frequently receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Only 50% will achieve pathological complete response (pCR). In this retrospective study, we evaluated TNBC outcomes with NAC vs. AC.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with stages II and III TNBC treated with NAC or AC between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Baseline characteristics were compared with χ2 and two sample t tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were computed in patients treated with NAC or AC, and log-rank tests used to examine differences. Unadjusted analyses of trends in proportions over time were performed using Cochran-Armitage tests. Log-binomial models were applied to estimate relative risks of non-pCR following NAC.<h4>Results</h4>Of 19,151 patients, 5,621 (29.4%) received NAC, 13,530 (70.6%) received AC. NAC treated patients had worse OS compared to AC treated patients (73.4% vs. 76.8%; p<0.0001). pCR rate following NAC was 47.4%, and was associated with improved 5 year OS compared to non-pCR (86.2% vs. 62.3%; p<0.0001). In patients who received NAC, age, black race, clinical stage, diagnosis year, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score predicted non-pCR status. Use of NAC increased over the study period from 2010 to 2013 (27.8% - 31.2%; p = 0.0002).<h4>Conclusions</h4>NAC may be inferior to AC in TNBC, likely related to the high frequency of non-pCR following NAC. It is unclear if removing the primary tumor prior to chemotherapy will have a beneficial biologic impact on therapeutic efficacy. These data should be considered hypothesis-generating as it is possible that the findings are due to selection bias, as physicians may use NAC for TNBC patients with more advanced local disease. Although, NAC still has a role in TNBC, developing biomarkers to identify patients likely to achieve pCR and benefit from NAC is an urgent need.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222358
work_keys_str_mv AT nusaybaabagegni clinicaloutcomeswithneoadjuvantversusadjuvantchemotherapyfortriplenegativebreastcancerareportfromthenationalcancerdatabase
AT yutao clinicaloutcomeswithneoadjuvantversusadjuvantchemotherapyfortriplenegativebreastcancerareportfromthenationalcancerdatabase
AT folusooademuyiwa clinicaloutcomeswithneoadjuvantversusadjuvantchemotherapyfortriplenegativebreastcancerareportfromthenationalcancerdatabase
_version_ 1714806154613227520