4.7 Article

Ki-67 response-guided preoperative chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: results of a randomised Phase 2 study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 122, Issue 12, Pages 1747-1753

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-0815-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The effectiveness of a therapeutic strategy that switches chemotherapy, based on Ki-67 tumour expression after initial therapy, relative to that of standard chemotherapy, has not been evaluated. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to the control arm or the Ki-67 response-guided arm (Ki-67 arm). Primary tumour biopsies were obtained before treatment, and after three once-weekly doses of paclitaxel and trastuzumab to assess the interim Ki-67 index. In the control arm, paclitaxel and trastuzumab were continued for a total of 12 doses, regardless of the interim Ki-67 index. In the Ki-67 arm, subsequent treatment was based on the interim Ki-67 index. Ki-67 early responder is defined as the absolute Ki-67 value that was <10%, and the percentage of Ki-67-positive tumour cells was reduced by >30% compared with before treatment. Early Ki-67 responders continued to receive the same treatment, while early Ki-67 non-responders were switched to epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide. The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response (pCR) rate. Results A total of 237 patients were randomised. There was almost linear correlation between the Ki-67 reduction rate at interim assessment and the pCR rate. The pCR rate in Ki-67 early non-responders in the Ki-67 arm was inferior to that in the control arm (44.1%; 31.4-56.7; P = 0.025). Conclusions The standard chemotherapy protocol remains as the recommended strategy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available