Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: The present systematic review and meta-analysis critically assessed the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nACT) in comparison to ACT in breast cancer patients in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing NACT with ACT in breast cancer patients were identified through Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials on January 21, 2016. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effects or random-effects method depending on heterogeneity (I ²). Grading of the evidences was also done. Subgroup meta-analysis on the basis of total preoperative chemotherapy or sandwich chemotherapy was also performed. Results: The present meta-analysis shows increased breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rate (n = 9, risk ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.19 [1.03–1.37]) with NACT. Further, NACT was found equally effective regarding overall survival (n = 15, hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.89–1.08]), disease-free survival (DFS) (n = 14, HR [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.86–1.18]), and distant metastasis (n = 13, HR [95% CI] = 0.97 [0.82–1.16]). Although locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate was noted to be significantly higher in NACT group (n = 15, HR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.06–1.43]), its significance disappeared (n = 13, HR [95% CI] = 1.17 [0.98–1.40]) by excluding the trials where surgery was not provided for patients with complete tumor response. After excluding such trials, preoperative NACT was associated with increased BCS with similar LRR in ACT group. Discussion: NACT has no major impact on breast cancer survival. However, it is associated with increased BCS rates. NACT downgrades tumor size facilitating more BCSs without increasing LRR. The evidences were graded for all outcomes as high except DFS and BCS as moderate.

Publication History

Article published online:
08 June 2021

© 2019. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B, Pierga JY, Vilcoq JR, Durand JC. et al. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: Preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 645-52
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: Updates of national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 775-85
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG. 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: 2483-93
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Kiebert GM, de Haes JC, van de Velde CJ. The impact of breast-conserving treatment and mastectomy on the quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients: A review. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1059-70
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, Durand M, Floquet A, Debled M. et al. 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). Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 47-52
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Deo SV, Bhutani M, Shukla NK, Raina V, Rath GK, Purkayasth J. et al. Randomized trial comparing neo-adjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in operable locally advanced breast cancer (T4b N0-2 M0). J Surg Oncol 2003; 84: 192-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: Results from the European organization for research and treatment of cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 4224-37
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 188-94
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 1189-200
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-9
  Google Scholar
• 11 Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I. et al. PRISMA for abstracts: Reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001419
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Liberati A, Altman DG. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Pathak M, Dwivedi SN, Deo S, Julka PK, Vishnubhatla S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in treatment of breast cancer. PROSPERO; 2015. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=23339. [Last assessed on 2015 Jun 25].
• 14 Higgins JP, Green S. editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Book Series. Chichester, England, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. p. 649
• 15 Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2007; 2: CD005002
  Google Scholar
• 16 Enomoto K, Ikeda T, Matsui A, Kitajima M, Koh J, Masamura S. et al. P73 Neoadjuvant therapy in stage II with T≥4CM and stage III breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: S33
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 17 Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2851-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Pathak M, Dwivedi SN, Deo S, Vishnubhatla S, Thakur B. Which is the preferred measure of heterogeneity in meta-analysis and why? A revisit. Biostat Biom Open Acc J 2017; 1: 555555
  Google Scholar
• 20 Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1046-55
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W, Porta VG, Semiglazov V, Lluch A. et al. Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European cooperative trial in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2474-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Taucher S, Steger GG, Jakesz R, Tausch C, Wette V, Schippinger W. et al. The potential risk of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients – Results from a prospective randomized trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG-07). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 112: 309-16
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Gazet JC, Ford HT, Gray R, McConkey C, Sutcliffe R, Quilliam J. et al. Estrogen-receptor-directed neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: Results of a randomised trial using formestane and methotrexate, mitozantrone and mitomycin C (MMM) chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 685-91
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE, Chang J, Hickish T, Tidy VA. et al. A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1179-84
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Scholl SM, Pierga JY, Asselain B, Beuzeboc P, Dorval T, Garcia-Giralt E. et al. Breast tumour response to primary chemotherapy predicts local and distant control as well as survival. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1969-75
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Semiglazov VF, Topuzov EE, Bavli JL, Moiseyenko VM, Ivanova OA, Seleznev IK, Sinha S. et al. Primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with primary radiotherapy alone in stage IIb-IIIa breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1994; 5: 591-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Takatsuka Y, Yayoi E, Kobayashi T, Aikawa T, Kotsuma Y. Neoadjuvant intra-arterial chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: A prospective randomized study. Osaka Breast Cancer Study Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1994; 24: 20-5
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Scholl SM, Asselain B, Palangie T, Dorval T, Jouve M, Garcia Giralt E. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1991; 27: 1668-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Danforth DRJR, Cowan K, Altemus R, Merino M, Chow C, Berman A. et al. Preoperative FLAC/granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor chemotherapy for stage II breast cancer: A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 635-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 van Nes JG, Putter H, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, van de Vijver M, Bogaerts J. et al. Preoperative chemotherapy is safe in early breast cancer, even after 10 years of follow-up; clinical and translational results from the EORTC trial 10902. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 115: 101-13
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Cheng G, Jiang D, Wang T, Qu Y, Qu Z, Han D. et al. A randomized prospective study on combined treatment of patients with stage-III breast cancer. Chin J Radiol Med Prot 2003; 5: 346-8
  Google Scholar
• 32 Ragaz J, Baird R, Rebbeck P, Trevisan C, Goldie J, Coldman A, Sarin YK. et al. Preoperative (neoadjuvant) versus postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I-II breast cancer. Long-term analysis of British Columbia randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997; 16: 142a
  Google Scholar
• 33 Stauffer J, Allred D, Aust J, Cruz A. Preoperative versus postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in early operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993; 27: 148
  Google Scholar
• 34 Ostapenko V, Pipiriene T, Valuckas K. Primary chemotherapy in conservative treatment of stage II breast cancer. The 6th International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34 (Suppl 1): S34
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 35 Forouhi P, Dixon JM, Leonard RC, Chetty U. Prospective randomized study of surgical morbidity following primary systemic therapy for breast cancer. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 79-82
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER. et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2672-85
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V. et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 366: 2087-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, Li T, Brignardello-Petersen R, Singh JA. et al. A GRADE working group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar