4.7 Article

Long-Term Outcome of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy with Aromatase Inhibitors in Elderly Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 1575-1582

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3535-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are more effective than tamoxifen as neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) for hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. Here we report the surgical and long-term outcome of elderly postmenopausal patients with locally advanced, HR-positive breast cancer treated with preoperative AIs. Between January 2003 and December 2012, 144 postmenopausal patients inoperable with breast conservative surgery (BCS) received letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane as NET. Patients underwent breast surgery and received adjuvant AIs. Adjuvant systemic therapy, chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab, and adjuvant radiotherapy were administered as appropriate, but limited to high-risk patients with few or no comorbidities. After a median follow-up of 49 months, 4 (3.0 %) patients had local relapse, 18 (12.5 %) had distant metastases, and 24 (17.0 %) died. BCS was performed in 121 (84.0 %) patients. A tumor size < 3 cm and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negativity were predictors of BCS. The achievement of BCS and grade G1 were significantly associated with longer disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.009 and p = 0.01, respectively) and overall survival (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Residual tumor a parts per thousand currency sign2 cm (yT0-yT1) in the longest diameter after NET was also statistically associated with longer DFS (p = 0.005). The results of this retrospective study indicate that elderly breast cancer patients with a tumor size < 3 cm at diagnosis and HER2 negativity have a higher probability of achieving BCS after NET. Moreover, patients treated with BCS and with grade G1 tumor have a reduced risk of recurrence and death in the long-term follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据