Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Does it result in more breast-conserving surgery?

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

Abstract

Background

Patients with locally advanced endocrine positive tumors who will not benefit from chemotherapy can be treated by either primary surgery or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET). How often does NET result in breast-conserving surgery (BCS)?

Methods

We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase, to identify articles on surgical treatment after NET.

Results

In 19 studies the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was reported after NET; an overall pCR rate of 1% was found. Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), the BCS rate was significantly higher after NET (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51–0.69; P < 0.00001). The surgical conversion rate was reported in eight studies [4–75.9%], with a mean of 30.2%.

Conclusion

This review found that one out of three patients becomes eligible for BCS after treatment with NET.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  1. Burstein HJ et al (2010) American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 6(5):243–246

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA, Li CI (2007) Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 9(1):R6

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Perloff M, Lesnick GJ (1982) Chemotherapy before and after mastectomy in stage III breast cancer. Arch Surg 117(7):879–881

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schick P et al (1983) Preoperative chemotherapy followed by mastectomy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 22(4):278–282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher B 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(7):2483–2493

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mauriac L et al (1991) Effects of primary chemotherapy in conservative treatment of breast cancer patients with operable tumors larger than 3 cm. Results of a randomized trial in a single centre. Ann Oncol 2(5):347–354

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mauriac L et al (1999) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonié Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS) 10(1):47–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Semiglazov VF et al (2007) Phase 2 randomized trial of primary endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer 110(2):244–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cardoso F et al (2016) 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(8):717–729

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sparano JA et al (2018) Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379(2):111–121

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Reis J et al (2020) Accuracy of breast MRI in patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: comprehensive imaging analysis and correlation with clinical and pathological assessments. Breast Cancer Res Treat 184(2):407–420

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chiba A 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(2):418–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yalcin B (2013) Overview on locally advanced breast cancer: defining, epidemiology, and overview on neoadjuvant therapy. Exp Oncol 35(4):250–252

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JPT et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sterne JA et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. von Elm E et al (2014) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 12(12):1495–1499

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bennett JA (2005) The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT): guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Nurs Res 54(2):128–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gazet JC et al (1996) Assesssment of the effect of pretreatment with neoadjuvant therapy on primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 73(6):758–762

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pariser AC et al (2019) Utilization, duration, and outcomes of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat 178(2):419–426

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alba E et al (2012) Chemotherapy (CT) and hormonotherapy (HT) as neoadjuvant treatment in luminal breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM/2006-03, a multicenter, randomized, phase-II study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3069–3074

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cottu P et al (2018) Letrozole and palbociclib versus chemotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy of high-risk luminal breast cancer. Ann Oncol 29(12):2334–2340

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dellapasqua S et al (2019) Neoadjuvant Degarelix versus triptorelin in premenopausal patients who receive letrozole for locally advanced endocrine-responsive breast cancer: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 37(5):386–395

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eiermann W et al (2001) Preoperative treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with letrozole: a randomized double-blind multicenter study. Ann Oncol 12(11):1527–1532

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ellis MJ 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

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Grassadonia A et al (2014) Long-term outcome of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with aromatase inhibitors in elderly women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21(5):1575–1582

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hojo T et al (2013) Use of the neo-adjuvant exemestane in post-menopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a randomized phase II trial (PTEX46) to investigate the optimal duration of preoperative endocrine therapy. Breast 22(3):263–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnston S et al (2019) Randomized phase II study evaluating palbociclib in addition to letrozole as neoadjuvant therapy in estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer: PALLET trial. J Clin Oncol 37(3):178–189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim HJ et al (2020) Efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pre-menopausal patients with oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative, lymph node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 22(1):54

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Krainick-Strobel UE et al (2008) Neoadjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive breast cancer: a phase IIb/III trial to investigate optimal duration of preoperative endocrine therapy. BMC Cancer 8:62

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. LeVasseur N et al (2019) Efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive breast cancer: results from a prospective institutional database. Clin Breast Cancer 19(6):e683–e689

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marcus DM et al (2013) Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy is associated with comparable outcomes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in post-menopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Front Oncol 3:317

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Milla-Santos A et al (2004) Anastrozole as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with hormone-dependent, locally-advanced breast cancer. Anticancer Res 24(2C):1315–1318

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Palmieri C et al (2014) NEOCENT: a randomised feasibility and translational study comparing neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with chemotherapy in ER-rich postmenopausal primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148(3):581–590

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prat A et al (2020) Ribociclib plus letrozole versus chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, luminal B breast cancer (CORALLEEN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 21(1):33–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Quenel-Tueux N et al (2015) Clinical and genomic analysis of a randomised phase II study evaluating anastrozole and fulvestrant in postmenopausal patients treated for large operable or locally advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer 113(4):585–594

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith IE et al (2005) Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: the Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined with Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23(22):5108–5116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thomas JS et al (2007) Histopathology of breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a common association between letrozole therapy and central scarring. Histopathology 51(2):219–226

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thornton MJ et al (2019) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 26(10):3166–3177

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wright JL et al (2017) Locoregional and overall recurrence after neaodjuvant endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor+ HER2- breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 40(5):490–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spring LM et al (2016) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2(11):1477–1486

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kaufmann M et al (2006) Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (Primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 24(12):1940–1949

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ma CX et al (2017) NeoPalAna: neoadjuvant palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and Anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23(15):4055–4065

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Merel E. van de Loo, Layla Andour, Anne E. van Heesewijk & Marieke E. Straver

  2. Department of Oncology, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Hendrika M. Oosterkamp

  3. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Gerrit-Jan Liefers

Authors
  1. Merel E. van de Loo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Layla Andour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne E. van Heesewijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hendrika M. Oosterkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerrit-Jan Liefers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marieke E. Straver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marieke E. Straver.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van de Loo, M.E., Andour, L., van Heesewijk, A.E. et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Does it result in more breast-conserving surgery?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 205, 5–16 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07222-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07222-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation