• Citer

Tailoring the optimal duration of the extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

par Pala, Laura;De Pas, Tommaso;Pagan, Eleonora;Sala, Isabella;Catania, Chiara;Zattarin, Emma;Arnone, Paolo;Grassi, Massimo Maria;Colleoni, Marco Angelo;Wolff, Antonio C;Cortes, Javier;Piccart-Gebhart, Martine ;Gelber, Richard;Viale, Giuseppe;Bagnardi, Vincenzo;Conforti, Fabio
Référence Breast, 69, page (258-264)
Publication Publié, 2023-06

Article révisé par les pairs

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Contenu
• Statistiques

Résumé :

Background: Controversy exists regarding the optimal duration of the extended adjuvant endocrine treatment (ET) in patients with early-stage breast-cancer (eBC). We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing a “limited-extended” adjuvant ET (defined as more than 5 but less than 7.5 years of treatment overall) versus a “full-extended” adjuvant ET (defined as more than 7.5 years of treatment overall) in eBC. Methods: To be eligible, RCTs had to i) compare a “limited-extended” adjuvant ET versus a “full-extended” adjuvant ET in patients with eBC; and ii) report disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio (HR) according to the disease nodal-status [i.e., nodal-negative (N-ve) versus nodal-positive (N + ve)]. The primary endpoint was to assess the difference in efficacy of full-versus limited-extended ET, measured in terms of the difference in DFS log-HR, according to the disease nodal-status. Secondary endpoint was the difference in efficacy of full-versus limited-extended ET according to tumor size (i.e., pT1 vs pT2/3/4), histological grade (i.e., G1/G2 vs G3), patients’ age (i.e., ≤60 vs > 60 years) and previous type of ET (i.e., aromatase inhibitors vs tamoxifen vs switch strategy). Results: Three phase III RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 6689 patients were included in the analysis, of which 3506 (53%) had N + ve disease. The full-extended ET provided no DFS-benefit as compared with the limited-extended ET in patients with N-ve disease (pooled DFS-HR = 1.04, 95%CI: 0.89 to 1.22; I2 = 18%). Conversely, in patients with N + ve disease the full-extended ET significantly improved DFS, with a pooled DFS-HR of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.74 to 0.97; I2 = 0%). There was a significant interaction between the disease nodal-status and the efficacy of the full-versus limited-extended ET (p-heterogeneity = 0.048). The full-extended ET provided no significant DFS-benefit as compared with the limited-extended ET in all the other subgroups analyzed. Conclusions: Patients with eBC and N + ve disease can obtain a significant DFS-benefit from the full-extended as compared with the limited-extended adjuvant ET.