High-dose alkylating chemotherapy in BRCA-altered triple-negative breast cancer: the randomized phase III NeoTN trial
-
Published:2023-09-09
Issue:1
Volume:9
Page:
-
ISSN:2374-4677
-
Container-title:npj Breast Cancer
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:npj Breast Cancer
Author:
Vliek SonjaORCID, Hilbers Florentine S., van Werkhoven ErikORCID, Mandjes Ingrid, Kessels Rob, Kleiterp Sieta, Lips Esther H.ORCID, Mulder Lennart, Kayembe Mutamba T., Loo Claudette E., Russell Nicola S.ORCID, Vrancken Peeters Marie-Jeanne T. F. D.ORCID, Holtkamp Marjo J., Schot Margaret, Baars Joke W., Honkoop Aafke H., Vulink Annelie J. E., Imholz Alex L. T., Vrijaldenhoven Suzan, van den Berkmortel Franchette W. P. J., Meerum Terwogt Jetske M., Schrama Jolanda G., Kuijer Philomeen, Kroep Judith R., van der Padt-Pruijsten Annemieke, Wesseling JelleORCID, Sonke Gabe S., Gilhuijs Kenneth G. A., Jager AgnesORCID, Nederlof PetraORCID, Linn Sabine C.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractExploratory analyses of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy trials have suggested that BRCA1 or BRCA2-pathway altered (BRCA-altered) breast cancer might be particularly sensitive to this type of treatment. In this study, patients with BRCA-altered tumors who had received three initial courses of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC), were randomized between a fourth ddAC course followed by high-dose carboplatin-thiotepa-cyclophosphamide or conventional chemotherapy (initially ddAC only or ddAC-capecitabine/decetaxel [CD] depending on MRI response, after amendment ddAC-carboplatin/paclitaxel [CP] for everyone). The primary endpoint was the neoadjuvant response index (NRI). Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 122 patients were randomized. No difference in NRI-score distribution (p = 0.41) was found. A statistically non-significant RFS difference was found (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.23–1.25; p = 0.15). Exploratory RFS analyses showed benefit in stage III (n = 35; HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03–0.75), but not stage II (n = 86; HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.30–3.30) patients. For stage III, 4-year RFS was 46% (95% CI 24–87%), 71% (95% CI 48–100%) and 88% (95% CI 74–100%), for ddAC/ddAC-CD, ddAC-CP and high-dose chemotherapy, respectively. No significant differences were found between high-dose and conventional chemotherapy in stage II-III, triple-negative, BRCA-altered breast cancer patients. Further research is needed to establish if there are patients with stage III, triple negative BRCA-altered breast cancer for whom outcomes can be improved with high-dose alkylating chemotherapy or whether the current standard neoadjuvant therapy including carboplatin and an immune checkpoint inhibitor is sufficient. Trial Registration: NCT01057069.
Funder
KWF Kankerbestrijding Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport | Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Oncology
Reference35 articles.
1. Bray, F. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68, 394–424 (2018). 2. Berry, D. A. et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3214–3223 (2011). 3. Hryniuk, W., Frei, E. 3rd & Wright, F. A. A single scale for comparing dose-intensity of all chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer: summation dose-intensity. J. Clin. Oncol. 16, 3137–3147 (1998). 4. Farquhar, C., Marjoribanks, J., Lethaby, A. & Azhar, M. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. CD003139, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003139.pub3 (2016). 5. Vollebergh, M. A. et al. An aCGH classifier derived from BRCA1-mutated breast cancer and benefit of high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 22, 1561–1570 (2011).
|
|