West German Study Group, Moenchengladbach; Breast Center Niederrhein, Ev. Hospital Bethesda, Moenchengladbach; University Clinics Cologne, Cologne.
West German Study Group, Moenchengladbach; Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen; Department of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin.
Ann Oncol. 2023 Jun;34(6):531-542. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.04.002. Epub 2023 Apr 14.
In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection.
Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m q2w or 8× nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m q1w, followed by 4× epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (90 mg + 600 mg) q2w; inclusion criteria: (i) cN0-1, RS 12-25, and post-ET Ki67 >10%; (ii) cN0-1 with RS >25. Patients with cN2-3 or (G3, baseline Ki67 ≥40%, and tumor size >1 cm) were allowed to be included without RS and/or ET response testing. Associations of key factors with pathological complete response (pCR) (primary) and survival (secondary) endpoints were analyzed using statistical mediation and moderation models.
Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010).
In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC.
在高危激素受体阳性/人表皮生长因子受体 2 阴性(HR+/HER2-)早期乳腺癌(EBC)中,与溶剂型(sb)紫杉醇相比,纳米白蛋白结合紫杉醇(nab)在新辅助试验中显示出有希望的疗效;然而,最佳的患者和治疗选择仍然是一个正在研究的课题。在这里,我们研究了 Oncotype DX®复发评分(RS)和内分泌治疗(ET)反应(低 ET 后 Ki67)在治疗选择中的潜力。
在 WSG-ADAPT 试验(NCT01779206)中,高危 HR+/HER2-EBC 患者被随机分配接受(neo)辅助 4×sb-紫杉醇 175mg/m q2w 或 8×nab-紫杉醇 125mg/m q1w,随后接受 4×表柔比星+环磷酰胺(90mg+600mg)q2w;纳入标准:(i)cN0-1、RS 12-25 和 ET 后 Ki67>10%;(ii)cN0-1,RS>25。cN2-3 或(G3、基线 Ki67≥40%和肿瘤大小>1cm)的患者允许纳入,无需进行 RS 和/或 ET 反应检测。使用统计中介和调节模型分析关键因素与病理完全缓解(pCR)(主要终点)和生存(次要终点)的相关性。
864 例患者接受了新辅助 nab-紫杉醇(n=437)或 sb-紫杉醇(n=427)治疗;nab-紫杉醇在 pCR 方面具有优势(20.8% vs. 12.9%,P=0.002)。RS>25 与 RS≤25 相比,pCR 更高(16.0% vs. 8.4%,P=0.021),与 ET 无反应相比,pCR 更高(15.1% vs. 6.0%,P=0.027);没有因素可以预测 nab-紫杉醇与 sb-紫杉醇的相对疗效。pCR 患者具有更长的远处无病生存(dDFS;风险比 0.42,95%置信区间[CI]0.20-0.91,P=0.024)。尽管 RS>25 与 RS≤25 与 pCR 具有有利的预后相关性(比值比 3.11,95%CI 1.71-5.63,P≤0.001),但较高的 RS 与 dDFS 不利相关(风险比 1.03,95%CI 1.01-1.05,P=0.010)。
在高危 HR+/HER2-EBC 中,新辅助 nab-紫杉醇 q1w 似乎比 sb-紫杉醇 q2w 在 pCR 方面更具优势。联合 RS 和 ET 反应评估似乎可以选择具有最高 pCR 率的患者。在 pCR 患者中,较高 RS 对 dDFS 的不利影响降低。这些是第一项支持使用 RS 来帮助选择高危 HR+/HER2-EBC 患者接受新辅助化疗的大型新辅助随机试验的结果。