primary endocrine therapy
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

92
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

12
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13034-e13034
Author(s):  
Robert Shenk ◽  
Lifen Cao ◽  
Jonathan T. Bliggenstorfer ◽  
James Michael Martin ◽  
Megan E. Miller

e13034 Background: Current ASCO guidelines recommend endocrine therapy as preferred primary treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We assessed survival outcomes of HR+/HER2- MBC patients undergoing endocrine therapy with and without chemotherapy. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried 2004-2016 for patients with de novo HR+/HER2- MBC. Exclusion criteria were treatment with surgery or radiation at the primary site and missing oncologic and follow up data. Overall survival was compared between systemic treatment groups using multivariable cox proportional hazards regression modes. Results: 19,317 patients met inclusion criteria, among whom 2,360 (12%) received no systemic therapy, 2,617 (14%) received chemotherapy only, 10,078 (52%) received endocrine therapy only and 4,262 (22%) received both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Patients treated with chemotherapy only more frequently had lung (38%, p<0.001) or liver (36%, p<0.001) metastasis while those undergoing endocrine therapy only presented primarily with bone metastasis (82%, p<0.001). Patients with multiple metastatic sites more often received endocrine therapy alone than combined therapy (44 vs. 25%, p<0.001). Median overall survival was similar after combination therapy and endocrine therapy, and poorest after chemotherapy alone (33.1 vs 31.4 vs 19.8 months, p<0.001). After controlling for patient, facility, and tumor characteristics, endocrine therapy alone provided superior survival benefit to chemotherapy only, though combination systemic therapy resulted in the greatest overall survival (p<0.001). Conclusions: Primary endocrine therapy provided significant survival benefit over chemotherapy alone for HR+/HER2- MBC. Though combination systemic therapy may be warranted in progressive disease, our results align with recommendations for endocrine therapy as first line treatment for HR+/HER2- MBC. [Table: see text]


The Breast ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. S71
Author(s):  
L. Williams ◽  
R. Lewis ◽  
R. Law ◽  
R. O’Connell ◽  
K. Krupa ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
R. M. Parks ◽  
M. A. Albanghali ◽  
B. M. Syed ◽  
A. R. Green ◽  
I. O. Ellis ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Prediction of response to primary endocrine therapy (PET) in older women is based on measurement of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and human epidermal growth factor (HER)-2. This study uses a unique method for construction of core needle biopsy (CNB) tissue microarray (TMA), to correlate expression of a panel of 17 biomarkers with clinical outcome, in patients receiving PET. Methods Over 37 years (1973–2010), 1758 older (≥ 70 years) women with operable primary breast cancer were managed in a single institution. Of these, 693 had sufficient good-quality CNB to construct TMA, of which 334 had ER-positive tumours treated by PET with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. A panel of biomarkers was measured by immunohistochemistry (ER, PgR, HER2, Ki-67, p53, CK5/6, CK 7/8, EGFR, BCL-2, MUC1, VEGF, LKB1, BRCA1, HER3, HER4, PTEN and AIB1). Expression of each biomarker was dichotomised into ‘low’ or ‘high’ based on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Results From the panel of biomarkers, multivariate analysis showed: High ER (p = 0.003) and PgR (p = 0.002) were associated with clinical benefit of PET at 6 months, as opposed to progressive disease. High ER (p = 0.0023), PgR (p < 0.001) and BCL-2 (p = 0.043) and low LKB1 (p = 0.022) were associated with longer time to progression. High PgR (p < 0.001) and low MUC1 (p = 0.021) were associated with better BCSS. Expression of other biomarkers did not show any significant correlation. Conclusions In addition to ER and PgR; MUC1, BCL-2 and LKB1 are important in determining the outcome of PET in this cohort.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. S52-S53
Author(s):  
J.I. Lopez Velazco ◽  
M. Otaño ◽  
L. Larburu ◽  
A. Lahuerta ◽  
K. Elorriaga ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document