Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: State of the Science and Future Directions

  • Systemic Therapies (M Liu and T Haddad, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy has long been known to confer clinical benefits for breast cancer patients by downstaging inoperable disease or providing those with operable disease the opportunity for breast conservation, without compromising risk of recurrence. In recent years, its benefits have broadened as it has become a pivotal platform for clinical research, providing new prognostic and predictive insights into in vivo response to therapy and long-term outcomes. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the research setting has expanded our knowledge of heterogeneity in tumor biology and chemosensitivity and provided insights into the relationships between molecular signatures of tumors, pathologic complete response (pCR), and long-term outcomes. This has provided opportunities to specifically select patients who might benefit from novel therapies and test these in a more efficient manner. Despite these major advancements, however, the majority of patients do not attain a pathologic complete response with systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This review describes the standard of care for systemic neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and discusses current management controversies and ongoing clinical trials designed to increase the proportion of patients who currently achieve a pCR.

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. Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi G. Inflammatory breast cancer: a review. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(6):1014–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozzetti F, Saccozzi R, De Lena M, Salvadori B. Inflammatory cancer of the breast: analysis of 114 cases. J Surg Oncol. 1981;18(4):355–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haagensen CD, Stout AP. Carcinoma of the breast. III. Results of treatment, 1935-1942. Ann Surg. 1951;134(2):151–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al. 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. 1997;15(7):2483–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, et al. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(13):2019–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;30:96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(8):2672–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, et al. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(22):4165–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer-insights from the German experience. Breast Cancer. 2012;19(4):282–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL—CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3242–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(32):3960–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Prowell TM, Pazdur R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2438–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barker AD, Sigman CC, Kelloff GJ, Hylton NM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86(1):97–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hofmann D, Nitz U, Gluz O, et al. WSG ADAPT—adjuvant dynamic marker-adjusted personalized therapy trial optimizing risk assessment and therapy response prediction in early breast cancer: study protocol for a prospective, multi-center, controlled, non-blinded, randomized, investigator initiated phase II/III trial. Trials. 2013;14:261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. LoRusso PM, Anderson AB, Boerner SA, Averbuch SD. Making the investigational oncology pipeline more efficient and effective: are we headed in the right direction? Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(24):5956–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeMichele A, Yee D, Berry DA, et al. The neoadjuvant model is still the future for drug development in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(13):2911–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Prowell TM, Pazdur R. Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012.

  21. Berry DA, Hudis CA. Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer as a basis for drug approval. JAMA Oncology. 2015.

  22. Bardia A, Baselga J. Neoadjuvant therapy as a platform for drug development and approval in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(23):6360–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375(9712):377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):633–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Azambuja E, Holmes AP, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): survival outcomes of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial and their association with pathological complete response. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. First results from the phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06; Martine J. Piccart-Gebhart, Andrew Peter Holmes, Jose Baselga, Evandro De Azambuja, Amylou C. Dueck, Giuseppe Viale, Jo Anne Zujewski, Aron Goldhirsch, Sergio Santillana, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Antonio C. Wolff, Christian Jackisch, Istvan Lang, Michael Untch, Ian E. Smith, Frances Boyle, Binghe Xu, Henry Leonidas Gomez, Richard D. Gelber and Edith A. Perez. NCCTG [Alliance] N063D) comparing one year of anti-HER2 therapy with lapatinib alone (L), trastuzumab alone (T), their sequence (T->L), or their combination (T+L) in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). Abstract, JCO 2014;32; LBA4

  27. Broglio KR, Quintana M, Foster M, et al. Association of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer with long-term outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):751–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Berry DA. Right-sizing adjuvant and neoadjuvant clinical trials in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):3–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF, et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(7):1280–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R et al. Long-term prognostic value of residual cancer burden (RCB) classification following neoadjuvant chemotherapy [Abstract S6-02]. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2013.

  32. Residual cancer burden calculator and associated documents [Guide for measuring cancer cellularity, examples of gross & microscopic evaluation, pathology protocol for macroscopic and microscopic assessment of RCB]. Houston, Texas: MD Anderson Cancer Center. http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3 (July 11, 2016, date last accessed).

  33. Untch M, Mobus V, Kuhn W, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):2938–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):375–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):359–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(2):401–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S, et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):747–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. von Minckwitz et al. Early survival analysis of the randomized phase II trial investigating the addition of carboplatin to neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto). SABCS December 2015.

  39. Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, et al. Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):13–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1145–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Isakoff SJ, Mayer EL, He L, et al. TBCRC009: a multicenter phase II clinical trial of platinum monotherapy with biomarker assessment in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(17):1902–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Telli ML, Jensen KC, Vinayak S, et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib as neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer with assessment of a tumor-based measure of genomic instability: PrECOG 0105. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(17):1895–901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rugo HS, Olopade OI, DeMichele A, et al. Adaptive randomization of veliparib-carboplatin treatment in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):23–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1673–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Carey LA, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, et al. Molecular heterogeneity and response to neoadjuvant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 targeting in CALGB 40601, a randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus trastuzumab with or without lapatinib. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):542–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. PIccart-Gebhart et al. First results from phase III ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06; NTCCTG alliance. Abstract, JCO 2014;32LBA4.

  47. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):25–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schneeweiss A, Chia S, Hickish T, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with standard neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimens in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a randomized phase II cardiac safety study (TRYPHAENA). Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):2278–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Baselga J, Swain SM. CLEOPATRA: a phase III evaluation of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10(6):489–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Esserman LJ, DeMichele A. Accelerated approval for pertuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting: winds of change? Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(14):3632–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Park JW, Liu MC, Yee D, et al. Adaptive randomization of neratinib in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):11–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. DeMichele A, Moulder S, Buxton M, et al. Efficacy of T-DM1 + pertuzumab over standard therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT042. 2016.

  53. Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, et al. 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. 2005;23(22):5108–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(28):7212–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dowsett M, Smith IE, Ebbs SR, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 expression after short-term presurgical endocrine therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(2):167–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, et al. Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer: evidence from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(18):3808–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Luo J, et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(19):1380–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Goncalves R, Ma C, Luo J, Suman V, Ellis MJ. Use of neoadjuvant data to design adjuvant endocrine therapy trials for breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(4):223–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Toi et al. A phase III trial of adjuvant capecitabine in breast cancer patients with HER2-negative pathologic residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CREATE-X, JBCRG-04).

  61. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Raab G, et al. In vivo chemosensitivity-adapted preoperative chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the GEPARTRIO pilot study. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(1):56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Untch M, Rezai M, Loibl S, et al. Neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2024–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(4):310–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1037–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12(6):335–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hunt KK, Yi M, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):558–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mamounas EP, Brown A, Anderson S, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2694–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. van Deurzen CH, Vriens BE, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(18):3124–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Xing Y, Foy M, Cox DD, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):539–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):258–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hurvitz SA, Martin M, Symmans F, et al. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1 [K]) + pertuzumab (P) vs docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + P (TCHP) treatment in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC) (KRISTINE). J Clin Oncol. 2016;34((suppl; abstr 500)).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abramson Cancer Center and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Yehoda M. Martei & Angela DeMichele

Authors
  1. Yehoda M. Martei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela DeMichele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela DeMichele.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Yehoda M Martei and Angela DeMichele declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Systemic Therapies

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martei, Y.M., DeMichele, A. Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: State of the Science and Future Directions. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 9, 1–12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-017-0235-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-017-0235-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation