Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a well-established therapeutic option for patients with locally advanced disease often allowing downstaging and facilitation of breast conserving therapy. With evolution of better targeted treatment regimens and awareness of improved outcomes for significant responders, use of NAC has expanded particularly for triple negative and HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. In this study, we explore utility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR+ HER2−) patients.

Methods

Patients with HR+ HER2− breast cancer treated with chemotherapy before or after surgery were identified from 2010 to 2015 in the NCDB. Multivariable regression models adjusted for covariates were used to determine associations within these groups.

Results

Among 134,574 patients (clinical stage 2A, 64%; 2B, 21%; 3, 15%), 105,324 (78%) had adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) and 29,250 (22%) received NAC. Use of NAC increased over time (2010–2015; 13.2–19.4% and PR = 1.34 for 2015; p < 0.0001). Patients were more likely to receive NAC with cT3, cT4, and cN+ disease. Patients less likely to receive NAC were age ≥ 50, lobular carcinoma, increased Charlson-Deyo score, and government insurance. Complete response (pCR) was noted in 8.3% of NAC patients. Axillary downstaging occurred in 21% of patients, and predictors included age < 50 years, black race, poorly differentiated grade, invasive ductal histology, and either ER or PR negativity.

Conclusions

NAC use among HR+ HER2− breast cancer patients has expanded over time and offers downstaging of disease for some patients, with pCR seen in only a small subset, but downstaging of the axilla in 21%. Further analysis is warranted to determine the subgroup of patients with HR+ HER2− disease who benefit from this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perloff M, Lesnick GJ (1982) Chemotherapy before and after mastectomy in stage III breast cancer. Arch Surg 117:879

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15:2483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV et al (2014) Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (alliance) prospective multicenter clinical trial. Ann Surg 260(4):608–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Donker M, Straver ME, Wesseling J et al (2015) Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients: the MARI procedure. Ann Surg 261:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA et al (2016) How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastasis? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol 23:3467–3474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. El Hage CH, Headon H, El Tokhy O et al (2016) Is sentinel lymph node biopsy a viable alternative to complete axillary dissection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis? An updated meta-analysis involving 3398 patients. Am J Surg 212:969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GerparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:542–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD et al (2013) Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:3623–3630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rigter LS, Loo CE, Linn SC et al (2013) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy adaptation and serial MRI response monitoring in ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer. Br J Cancer 109:2965–2972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Prowell TM, Pazdur R (2012) Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2438–2441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al (2014) Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384(9938):164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson E (2002) The role of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in human mammary development and tumorigenesis. Breast Cancer Res 4:197–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schott AF, Hayes DF (2012) Defining the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Murphy BL, Day CN, Hoskin TL et al (2018) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in breast cancer is greatest in excellent responders: triple-negative and HER2+ subtypes. Ann Surg Oncol 25(8):2241–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30:377–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Heijden GJ, Donders AR, Stijnen T, Moons KG (2006) Imputation of missing values is superior to complete case analysis and the missing indicator method in multivariable diagnostic research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1102–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guangyong Z (2004) A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159(7):702–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tamhane AR, Westfall AO, Burkholder GA, Cutter GR (2016) Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences. Stat Med 35(30):5730–5735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, Cheang MC et al (2012) Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res 132:1049–1062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Buzdar AU et al (1998) Resideual metastatic axillary lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg 176:502–509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Spring LM, Fell G, Arfe A, et al (2018) Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast cancer recurrence and survival, stratified by breast cancer subtypes and adjuvant chemotherapy usage. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Presented December 5, 2018.

  23. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al (2012) Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 30:1796–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J et al (2004) Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized clinical trials. Lancet 364:858–868

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Puig C, Hoskin TL, Day CN et al (2017) National trends in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-negative breast cancer: a national cancer data base study. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1242–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Heins CN et al (2017) Trends in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy use and impact on rates of breast conservation in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a national cancer data base study. Ann Surg Oncol 24:418–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J et al (2011) Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype-ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol 29(17):2342–2349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Suman VJ, Ellis EJ, Ma CX (2015) The alternate trial: assessing a biomarker driven strategy for the treatment of post-menopausal women with ER+/Her2- invasive breast cancer. Chin Clin Oncol 4(3):34

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chavez-MacGregor M, Litton J, Chen H et al (2010) Pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline- and taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 116:4168–4177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Warner ET, Ballman KV, Strand C et al (2016) Impact of race, ethnicity, and BMI on achievement of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a pooled analysis of four prospective Alliance clinical trials (A151426). Breast Cancer Res Treat 159:109–118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Wang SY et al (2015) Racial differences in the use and outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: results from the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol 33:4267–4275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tichy JR, Deal AM, Anders CK et al (2015) Race, response to chemotherapy, and outcome within clinical breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150:667–674

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pastoriza JM, Karagiannis GS, Lin J et al (2018) Black race and distant recurrence after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin Exp Metas 25:613–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The data used in the study are derived from a de-identified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology employed, or the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigator.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mount Sinai Health System, New York, USA

    Michael Zeidman, J. Jaime Alberty-Oller, Meng Ru, Kereeti V. Pisapati, Erin Moshier, Soojin Ahn, Madhu Mazumdar, Elisa Port & Hank Schmidt

Authors
  1. Michael Zeidman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Jaime Alberty-Oller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meng Ru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kereeti V. Pisapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erin Moshier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Soojin Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Madhu Mazumdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elisa Port
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hank Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Zeidman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeidman, M., Alberty-Oller, J.J., Ru, M. et al. Use of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 184, 203–212 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05809-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05809-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation