Radiation Oncology (Jul 2024)

Factors influencing pathological complete response and tumor regression in neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer

  • Jan Haussmann,
  • Wilfried Budach,
  • Carolin Nestle-Krämling,
  • Sylvia Wollandt,
  • Danny Jazmati,
  • Bálint Tamaskovics,
  • Stefanie Corradini,
  • Edwin Bölke,
  • Alexander Haussmann,
  • Werner Audretsch,
  • Christiane Matuschek

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02450-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 17

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Pathological complete response (pCR) is a well-established prognostic factor in breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (naST). The determining factors of pCR are known to be intrinsic subtype, proliferation index, grading, clinical tumor and nodal stage as well as type of systemic therapy. The addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (naRT) to this paradigm might improve response, freedom from disease, toxicity and cosmetic outcome compared to adjuvant radiotherapy. The factors for pCR and primary tumor regression when neoadjuvant radiation therapy is added to chemotherapy have not been thoroughly described. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 341 patients (cT1-cT4/cN0-N+) treated with naRT and naST between 1990 and 2003. Patients underwent naRT to the breast and mostly to the supra-/infraclavicular lymph nodes combined with an electron or brachytherapy boost. NaST was given either sequentially or simultaneously to naRT using different regimens. We used the univariate and multivariate regression analysis to estimate the effect of different subgroups and treatment modalities on pCR (ypT0/Tis and ypN0) as well as complete primary tumor response (ypT0/Tis; bpCR) in our cohort. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the interval between radiotherapy (RT) and resection (Rx) as well as radiotherapy dose. Results Out of 341 patients, pCR and pbCR were achieved in 31% and 39%, respectively. pCR rate was influenced by resection type, breast cancer subtype, primary tumor stage and interval from radiation to surgery in the multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis of bpCR showed age, resection type, breast cancer subtype, clinical tumor stage and grading as significant factors. Resection type, subtype and clinical tumor stage remained significant in multivariate analysis. Radiation dose to the tumor and interval from radiation to surgery were not significant factors for pCR. However, when treatment factors were added to the model, a longer interval from radiotherapy to resection was a significant predictor for pCR. Conclusions The factors associated with pCR following naST and naRT are similar to known factors after naST alone. Longer interval to surgery might to be associated with higher pCR rates. Dose escalation beyond 60 Gy did not result in higher response rates.

Keywords