Dataset Information

Post-Neoadjuvant Treatment in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Escalation and De-Escalation Strategies.

ABSTRACT: Patients with high-risk non-metastatic breast cancer are recommended for chemotherapy, preferably in the neoadjuvant setting. Beyond advantages such as a better operability and an improved assessment of individual prognosis, the preoperative administration of systemic treatment offers the unique possibility of selecting postoperative therapies according to tumor response. In patients with HER2-positive disease, both the escalation of therapy in the case of high-risk features and the de-escalation in patients with a low tumor load are currently discussed. Patients with small node-negative tumors receive primary surgery and, upon confirmation of pathological T1 N0 status, de-escalated adjuvant therapy with paclitaxel and trastuzumab. For those with a large tumor and/or nodal involvement, neoadjuvant polychemotherapy with a dual antibody blockade is recommended. Patients with invasive residual disease benefit from switching postoperative therapy to the antibody-drug-conjugate trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). In this review, we discuss current evidence and controversies regarding post-neoadjuvant treatment strategies in HER2-positive breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Krawczyk N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9221124 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Post-Neoadjuvant Treatment in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Escalation and De-Escalation Strategies.

Krawczyk Natalia N Fehm Tanja T Ruckhaeberle Eugen E Brus Laura L Kopperschmidt Valeria V Rody Achim A Hanker Lars L Banys-Paluchowski Maggie M

Cancers 20220618 12

Patients with high-risk non-metastatic breast cancer are recommended for chemotherapy, preferably in the neoadjuvant setting. Beyond advantages such as a better operability and an improved assessment of individual prognosis, the preoperative administration of systemic treatment offers the unique possibility of selecting postoperative therapies according to tumor response. In patients with HER2-positive disease, both the escalation of therapy in the case of high-risk features and the de-escalatio ...[more]

PMID: 35740667

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed.ObjectiveTo examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020.ExposureThere were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Project description:BackgroundTCbHP (taxane + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab) is the preferred neoadjuvant therapy regimen for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. However, no consensus exists regarding whether specific populations may be exempt from carboplatin, allowing for de-escalation to the THP (taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab) regimen. Additionally, the optimal number of cycles for neoadjuvant THP remains unclear. We compared the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant TCbHP and THP regimens, providing clinicians with a nuanced perspective to guide their treatment regimen selection.MethodsThis multicenter real-world study included patients with HER2-positive breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant TCbHP or THP between March 2019 and February 2023. Efficacy was assessed through the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, while safety was evaluated through monitoring adverse events.ResultsAmong 220 patients, 103 received 6 cycles of TCbHP (TCbHP×6), 83 received 6 cycles of THP (THP×6), and 34 received 4 cycles of THP (THP×4). The TCbHP×6 cohort exhibited a 66% pCR rate compared with 53% in the THP×6 cohort (P = 0.072). Subgroup analysis revealed that in patients aged ≤ 50 years, those with hormone receptor (HR)-negative status, and those with clinical stage T2, the pCR rate of the TCbHP×6 regimen was significantly higher than the THP×6 regimen (P < 0.05). The TCbHP×6 cohort reported higher frequencies of any-grade adverse events (99% versus 86.7%) and grade 3-4 events (49.5% versus 12%) than the THP×6 cohort. Propensity score matching identified 27 patient pairs between the THP×6 and THP×4 cohorts, indicating a significantly higher pCR rate for the THP×6 regimen than the THP×4 regimen (63% versus 29.6%, P = 0.029).ConclusionsThe TCbHP×6 regimen is favored for individuals aged ≤ 50 years and those aged > 50, ≤60 years with HR-negative status or clinical stage T2-4. For patients in compromised general condition or lacking the specified indications, the THP×6 regimen emerges as a lower-toxicity alternative with satisfactory efficacy. To ensure treatment efficacy, a minimum of 6 cycles of neoadjuvant THP is required.

Dataset Information

Post-Neoadjuvant Treatment in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Escalation and De-Escalation Strategies.

Publications

Post-Neoadjuvant Treatment in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Escalation and De-Escalation Strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets