Preview

Malignant tumours

Advanced search

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSE TO NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH AGGRESSIVE BIOLOGICAL SUBTYPES OF STAGE II–III BREAST CANCER. ORIGINAL STUDY

https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2021-11-4-5-13

Abstract

Goal: To analyze the tumor response to NACT in patients with aggressive biological subtypes of stage II–III breast cancer based on the contemporary scoring systems for residual pathological stage evaluation and the residual cancer burden according to the RCB system.

Materials and methods: A total of 172 women with stage II–III breast cancer of aggressive biological subtypes (triple negative in 34,3 %; HER2‑positive tumors in 28,5 %; luminal B Her2‑negative BC in 37,2 %) were included in this analysis. The median age of the patients was 47 years (24–81 years); сT2 was the predominant tumor size (65,1 %); 69,8 % of patients had regional lymph node involvement; 62,8 % of patients had G3 tumor; Ki67 ≥ 30 % was found in 90,7 % of cases. All patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with concomitant anti-HER2 blockade in case of HER2‑positive tumors followed by surgery. Morphological assessment included evaluation of the residual pathological stage and the residual cancer burden according to the RCB system.

Results: Total pathological complete response (no evidence of residual invasive tumor in the breast and lymph nodes — tpCR) was observed in 69 of 172 patients (40,1 %), which corresponded to the уpT0N0 pathological stage and RCB class 0. The highest tpCR rate was achieved in patients with HER2‑positive cancer (63 % in non-luminal HER2‑positive subtype and 59.1 % in luminal HER2 + BC) and triple negative cancer (50,8 %). Meanwhile, the tpCR rate in patients with luminal HER2‑negative BC was only 15,6 %, p < 0.0001.

The proportions of the RCB classes in the whole sample were 6,4 % (RCB-I), 30,2 % (RCB-II), 23,3 % (RCB-III), and differed significantly between the biological subtypes. RCB class I was nearly absent in the triple negative cancer group (1,7 % only), the residual tumor corresponded to RCB classes II and III in 25,4 % and 23,7 % of cases, respectively. In the HER2‑positive cancer group, the percentage of patients with RCB class I residual tumors was 9,1 % and 11,0 % in luminal and non-luminal cancers, respectively. One of four patients had RCB class II; RCB class III was found only in 9 % of luminal HER2‑positive cancer cases and in no patients with non-luminal HER2‑positive subtype. Most patients with luminal B HER2‑negative BC had RCB II and III: 39,1 % and 37,5 % of cases, respectively, p < 0.0001.

Conclusions: patients with aggressive biological BC subtypes differed significantly not only in the rates of the total pathological complete response to NACT, but also in the distribution of residual cancer burden classes, which can be translated into the disease prognosis.

About the Authors

D. A. Morozov
Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation

Dmitriy A. Morozov, Postgraduate student of the Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine

Moscow



I. V. Kolyadina
Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov
Russian Federation

Irina V. Kolyadina, MD, PhD, DSc, Professor of the Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; Leading Researcher, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov

Moscow



I. P. Ganshina
N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation

Inna P. Ganshina, MD, PhD, Leading Researcher, oncologist of the 1st Chemotherapy Unit

Moscow



S. V. Khokhlova
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov
Russian Federation

Svetlana V. Khokhlova, M D, PhD, DSc, Head of the Oncology and Cancer Drug Treatment Unit

Moscow



V. V. Kоmetova
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov
Russian Federation

Vlada V. Kоmetova, MD, PhD, Head of the Cancer Pathology Unit

Moscow



V. V. Rodionov
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov; Ulyanovsk State University
Russian Federation

Valery V. Rodionov, MD, PhD, DSc, Head of the Unit of Breast Diseases, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V. I. Kulakov; Professor of the Department of Oncology and Diagnostic Imaging, Ulyanovsk State University

Moscow, Ulyanovsk



I. V. Poddubnaya
Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation

Irina V. Poddubnaya, MD, PhD, DSc, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Vice Rector for Medicine and International Cooperation, Medicine, Honored Education Worker of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Russian Oncohematology Society

Moscow



References

1. The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2018. Ed. A. D. Kaprina, V. V. Starinsky, G. V. Petrova. Moscow: Herzen MNIOI – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution «National Medical Research Center of Radiology» of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2019 (in Russian).

2. Клинические рекомендации «Рак молочной железы» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации, 2020 год https://oncology-association.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/rak_molochnoj_zhelezy.pdf

3. Колядина И. В. и др. Эволюция неоадъювантного подхода при первично-операбельном раке молочной железы в последнюю декаду: модный тренд или реальная клиническая практика? //Современная онкология. 2017. Т. 19. № 1. С. 9-16.

4. Колядина И. В. и др, Особенности хирургического лечения больных раком молочной железы, получающих предоперационную лекарственную терапию// Современная онкология. 2016. Т. 18. № 1. С. 50-54.

5. Колядина И. В., Данзанова Т. Ю., Хохлова С. В и др. Современный взгляд на вопросы диагностики и верификации поражения аксиллярных лимфатических узлов при раннем раке молочной железы. Современная онкология. 2020. Т. 22. № 1. С. 46-52.

6. Колядина И. В., Завалишина Л. Э., Ганьшина И. П. и др. Роль кластерной амплификации гена HER2 как маркера «особой» чувствительности к неоадъювантной анти-HER2 терапии трастузумабом при раке молочной железы II–III стадии. Архив патологии. 2019. Т. 81. № 6. С. 56-62.

7. Bonnefoi H. et al. Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an independent predictive factor irrespective of simplified breast cancer intrinsic subtypes: A landmark and two-step approach analyses from the EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 phase III trial // Ann. Oncol. 2014. Т. 25. № 6. С. 1128–1136

8. Fayanju O. M. et al. The Clinical Significance of Breast-only and Node-only Pathologic Complete Response (pCR) after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT): A Review of 20,000 Breast Cancer Patients in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB)// Ann Surg. 2018 October; 268 (4): 591–601.

9. Павликова О. А., Колядина И. В., Комов Д. В. и др. Факторы-предикторы достижения полного лекарственного патоморфоза при неоадъювантной химиотерапии первично-операбельного рака молочной железы. Современная онкология. 2017. Т. 19. № 1. С. 24-29.

10. Provenzano E. et al. Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: Recommendations from an international working group // Mod. Pathol. 2015. Т. 28. № 9. С. 1185–1201.

11. Anne-Sophie Hamy, Lauren Darrigues, Enora Laas et all. Prognostic value of the Residual Cancer Burden index according to breast cancer subtype: Validation on a cohort of BC patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 24;15 (6):e0234191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234191.

12. Cortazar P. et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis // Lancet. 2014. Т. 384. № 9938. С. 164–172.

13. Колядина И. В., Поддубная И. В. Ключевые исследования, изменившие историю и принципы лечения раннего HER2 + рака молочной железы: фокус на индивидуализацию терапии. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2020. Т. 16. № 3. С. 46-56.

14. Pandy J. G. P. et al. Triple negative breast cancer and platinum-based systemic treatment: a meta-analysis and systematic review // BMC Cancer. 2019. Т. 19. № 1. С. 1–9.

15. Гордеева О. О., Колядина И. В., Жукова Л. Г. и др. Эффективность и безопасность неоадъюватной химиотерапии в режиме PlaTax у больных трижды негативным раком молочной железы II–III стадий. Опухоли женской репродуктивной системы. 2020. Т. 16. № 2. С. 25-37.


Review

For citations:


Morozov D.A., Kolyadina I.V., Ganshina I.P., Khokhlova S.V., Kоmetova V.V., Rodionov V.V., Poddubnaya I.V. CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSE TO NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH AGGRESSIVE BIOLOGICAL SUBTYPES OF STAGE II–III BREAST CANCER. ORIGINAL STUDY. Malignant tumours. 2021;11(4):5-13. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2021-11-4-5-13

Views: 1284


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2224-5057 (Print)
ISSN 2587-6813 (Online)