Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Early-Stage Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Single-Center Experience

Abstract

This study aims to investigate factors influencing the outcomes of early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients.We conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 early-stage TNBC patients at Medipol University Faculty of Medicine from 2012 to 2022. Patient characteristics, including age, menopausal status, treatment regimens, clinical and pathological stages, surgical interventions, adjuvant therapies, and genetic mutations, were considered. We defined pathological complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual cancer cells following neoadjuvant treatment(NAT).The median age was 45.3 years, 55 of them were premenopausal, and 46 were postmenopausal. Most patients (70.3%) had T2 tumors, and 35.6% had N0 clinical lymph node status, while 52.5% had N1. NAT was administered to 63.4% of patients, and adjuvant treatment to 36.6%. Among the patients who received NAT, 32.8% achieved a pCR. Factors such as T stage, N stage, dose-dense chemotherapy, addition of carboplatin to NAT, and BRCA mutation status showed no significant difference between patients achieving pCR and those who did not. High Ki-67 expression was associated with higher pCR rates. The 24-month disease-free survival(DFS) and overall survival(OS) rates were 78.5% and 83.6%, respectively. Factors such as adjuvant capecitabine use, menopausal status, low ki-67 expression, and achieving pCR were associated with longer DFS. On multivariate analysis, the initial N stage and achieving pCR were independent prognostic factors for DFS. For OS, initial N stage and pCR status were significant prognostic factors.This study highlights the significance of achieving pCR in early-stage TNBC and the DFS benefits of adjuvant capecitabine.

Keywords

• breast cancer
• neoadjuvant treatment
• ki-67

Erken Evre Triple Negatif Meme Kanserinde Sağkalım Sonuçları ve Prognostik Faktörler: Tek Merkez Deneyimi

Abstract

Çalışmamız, erken evre triple negatif meme kanseri (TNMK) hastalarının sonuçlarını etkileyen faktörleri araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. 2012-2022 yılları arasında Medipol Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Tıbbi Onkoloji kliniğine başvuran 101 TNMK hastasının verileri retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. Hastaların yaş, menopoz durumu, tedavi rejimleri, klinik ve patolojik evreleri, cerrahi müdahaleleri, yardımcı tedavileri ve genetik mutasyonları gibi özellikleri kaydedildi. Patolojik tam yanıt (pCR), neoadjuvan tedavi(NAT) sonrası patolojide kanser hücrelerinin bulunmaması olarak tanımlandı. Medyan yaş 45.3 yıldı, 55 hasta premenopoz ve 46 hasta postmenopoz idi. Hastaların çoğunda (%70.3) T2 tümörü vardı, hastaların %35.6'sı klinik evre N0, %52.5'i ise N1'di. Hastaların %63.4' üne NAT, %36.6'sına adjuvan tedavi uygulandı. NAT alan hastaların %32.8'inde pCR elde edildi. T evresi, N evresi, doz yoğun kemoterapi, NAT'e karboplatin eklenmesi ve BRCA mutasyon durumu gibi faktörler, pCR elde edilen hastalar ile edilmeyen hastalar arasında anlamlı bir fark göstermedi. Yüksek ki-67 ifadesi, daha yüksek pCR oranları ile ilişkilendirildi. 24 aylık hastalıksız sağkalım(DFS) ve genel sağkalım(OS) oranları sırasıyla %78.5 ve %83.6 idi. Adjuvan kapesitabin kullanımı, menopoz durumu, düşük ki-67 ifadesi ve pCR elde etme gibi faktörler, daha uzun DFS ile ilişkilendirildi. Çoklu değişken analizinde, başlangıç N evresi ve pCR elde etme, DFS için bağımsız prognostik faktörlerdi. OS için başlangıç N evresi ve pCR durumu anlamlı prognostik faktörlerdi. Bu çalışma, erken evre TNMK'de pCR elde etmenin önemini ve adjuvan kapesitabinin DFS faydalarını vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• meme kanseri
• neoadjuvan tedavi
• ki-67

References

1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021 [published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jul;71(4):359]. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7-33. doi:10.3322/caac.21654
2. 2. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):e48-e72. doi:10.5858/134.7.e48
3. 3. Trivers KF, Lund MJ, Porter PL, et al. The epidemiology of triple-negative breast cancer, including race. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(7):1071-1082. doi:10.1007/s10552-009-9331-1
4. 4. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 3;359(1):106] [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 16;360(16):1685]. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(16):1663-1671. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0707056
5. 5. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006 May 24;295(20):2356]. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1658-1667. doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1658
6. 6. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis [published correction appears in Lancet. 2019 Mar 9;393(10175):986]. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164-172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
7. 7. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al. Pembrolizumab for Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(9):810-821. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
8. 8. Kuroi K, Toi M, Ohno S, et al. Prognostic significance of subtype and pathologic response in operable breast cancer; a pooled analysis of prospective neoadjuvant studies of JBCRG. Breast Cancer. 2015;22(5):486-495. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0511-1

9. 9. Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant Capecitabine for Breast Cancer after Preoperative Chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147-2159. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1612645
10. 10. 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):1796-1804. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595
11. 11. Tao M, Chen S, Zhang X, Zhou Q. Ki-67 labeling index is a predictive marker for a pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(51):e9384. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009384
12. 12. Poggio F, Bruzzone M, Ceppi M, et al. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(7):1497-1508. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy127
13. 13. Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(1):133-140. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1103-9
14. 14. Pavese F, Capoluongo ED, Muratore M, et al. BRCA Mutation Status in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Pivotal Role for Treatment Decision-Making. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(19):4571. Published 2022 Sep 21. doi:10.3390/cancers14194571
15. 15. Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P. Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast. 2008;17(4):323-334. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2008.02.002
16. 16. Mohamed A, Olsson LT, Geradts J. Differential distribution of actual and surrogate oncotype DX recurrence scores in breast cancer patients by age, menopausal status, race, and body mass index. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;201(3):447-460. doi:10.1007/s10549-023-07025-8
17. 17. da Silva JL, Carvalho GS, Zanetti de Albuquerque L, et al. Exploring Real-World HER2-Low Data in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Insights and Implications. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2023;15:337-347. Published 2023 May 8. doi:10.2147/BCTT.S408743
18. 18. O'Rorke MA, Murray LJ, Brand JS, Bhoo-Pathy N. The value of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival and recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5507 patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;47:12-21. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.05.001
19. 19. Stuart-Harris R, Dahlstrom JE, Gupta R, Zhang Y, Craft P, Shadbolt B. Recurrence in early breast cancer: Analysis of data from 3,765 Australian women treated between 1997 and 2015. Breast. 2019;44:153-159. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2019.02.004
20. 20. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63(1):181-187. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::aid-cncr2820630129>3.0.co;2-h
21. 21. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Increasing the dose intensity of chemotherapy by more frequent administration or sequential scheduling: a patient-level meta-analysis of 37 298 women with early breast cancer in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2019;393(10179):1440-1452. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33137-4
22. 22. Polley MC, Leon-Ferre RA, Leung S, et al. A clinical calculator to predict disease outcomes in women with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;185(3):557-566. doi:10.1007/s10549-020-06030-5