Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Clicks: 3
ID: 296956
2005
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
3 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #271 of 335 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 335 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: Interest in the use of preoperative systemic treatment in the management of breast cancer has increased because such neoadjuvant therapy appears to reduce the extent of local surgery required. We compared the clinical end points of patients with breast cancer treated preoperatively with systemic therapy (neoadjuvant therapy) and of those treated postoperatively with the same regimen (adjuvant therapy) in a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Methods: We evaluated nine randomized studies, including a total of 3946 patients with breast cancer, that compared neoadjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy regardless of what additional surgery and/or radiation treatment was used. Fixed and random effects methods were used to combine data. Primary outcomes were death, disease progression, distant disease recurrence, and loco-regional disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were local response and conservative local treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We found no statistically or clinically significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and adjuvant therapy arms associated with death (summary risk ratio [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.12), disease progression (summary RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.07), or distant disease recurrence (summary RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.06). However, neoadjuvant therapy was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of loco-regional disease recurrences (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.43), compared with adjuvant therapy, especially in trials where more patients in the neoadjuvant, than the adjuvant, arm received radiation therapy without surgery (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.10). Across trials, we observed heterogeneity in the rates of complete clinical response (range = 7%–65%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), pathologic response (range = 4%–29%; P for heterogeneity of <.001), and adoption of conservative local treatment (range = 28%–89% in neoadjuvant arms, P for heterogeneity of <.001). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy was apparently equivalent to adjuvant therapy in terms of survival and overall disease progression. Neoadjuvant therapy, compared with adjuvant therapy, was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of loco-regional recurrence when radiotherapy without surgery was adopted.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W2171958606
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Davide Mauri, N. Pavlidis, John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Journal | JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
| Year | 2005 |
| DOI |
10.1093/jnci/dji021
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.