scholarly journals A Canadian national expert consensus on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: linking practice to evidence and beyond

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.E. Simmons ◽  
S. Hogeveen ◽  
R. Leonard ◽  
Y. Rajmohan ◽  
D. Han ◽  
...  

BackgroundUse of the neoadjuvant approach to treat breast cancer patients has increased since the early 2000s, but the overall pathway of care for such patients can be highly variable. The aim of our project was to establish a multidisciplinary consensus among clinicians with expertise in neoadjuvant therapy (nat) for breast cancer and to determine if that consensus reflects published methods used in randomized controlled trials (rcts) in this area.MethodsA modified Delphi protocol, which used iterative surveys administered to 85 experts across Canada, was established to obtain expert consensus concerning all aspects of the care pathway for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer. All rcts published between January 1, 1967, and December 1, 2012, were systematically reviewed. Data extracted from the rcts were analyzed to determine if the methods used matched the expert consensus for specific areas of nat management. A scoring system determined the strength of the agreement between the literature and the expert consensus.ResultsConsensus was achieved for all areas of the pathway of care for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer, with the exception of the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-treatment or preoperative setting. The levels of agreement between the consensus statements and the published rcts varied, primarily because specific aspects of the pathway of care were not well described in the reviewed literature.ConclusionsA true consensus of expert opinion concerning the pathway of care appropriate for patients receiving nat for breast cancer has been achieved. A review of the literature illuminated gaps in the evidence about some elements of nat management. Where evidence is available, agreement with expert opinion is strong overall. Our study is unique in its approach to establishing consensus among medical experts in this field and has established a pathway of care that can be applied in practice for patients receiving nat.

The Breast ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. van Hoeve ◽  
L. de Munck ◽  
R. Otter ◽  
J. de Vries ◽  
S. Siesling

The Breast ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 208
Author(s):  
L. Neamţiu ◽  
S. Deandrea ◽  
L. Pylkkänen ◽  
C. Freeman ◽  
J. López-Alcalde ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Tong Zhao ◽  
Zhao Bi ◽  
Zhao-Peng Zhang ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
...  

 The purpose was to integrate clinicopathological and laboratory indicators to predict axillary nodal pathologic complete response (apCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The pretreatment clinicopathological and laboratory indicators of 416 clinical nodal-positive breast cancer patients who underwent surgery after NAT were analyzed from April 2015 to 2020. Predictive factors of apCR were examined by logistic analysis. A nomogram was built according to logistic analysis. Among the 416 patients, 37.3% achieved apCR. Multivariate analysis showed that age, pathological grading, molecular subtype and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were independent predictors of apCR. A nomogram was established based on these four factors. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.758 in the training set. The validation set showed good discrimination, with AUC of 0.732. In subtype analysis, apCR was 23.8, 47.1 and 50.8% in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-, HER2+ and triple-negative subgroups, respectively. According to the results of the multivariate analysis, pathological grade and fibrinogen level were independent predictors of apCR after NAT in HER2+ patients. Except for traditional clinicopathological factors, laboratory indicators could also be identified as predictive factors of apCR after NAT. The nomogram integrating pretreatment indicators demonstrated its distinguishing capability, with a high AUC, and could help to guide individualized treatment options.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 2747-2754
Author(s):  
Anita Sejben ◽  
Renáta Kószó ◽  
Zsuzsanna Kahán ◽  
Gábor Cserni ◽  
Tamás Zombori

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e0117745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Heskamp ◽  
Otto C. Boerman ◽  
Janneke D. M. Molkenboer-Kuenen ◽  
Carla A. Wauters ◽  
Luc J. A. Strobbe ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document