The Difference of RCB 0 and RCB I in Prognosis of Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical breast cancer Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1016/j.clbc.2024.11.023

Xinlong Tao, Jingqi Han, Yongxin Li, Yaming Tian, Zhou Juan Li, Jinming Li, Xinjian Guo, Jiuda Zhao

{"title":"The Difference of RCB 0 and RCB I in Prognosis of Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Xinlong Tao, Jingqi Han, Yongxin Li, Yaming Tian, Zhou Juan Li, Jinming Li, Xinjian Guo, Jiuda Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.clbc.2024.11.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of the residual cancer burden (RCB) for assessing breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly common, but the prognostic difference between RCB 0 and RCB I is unclear.Methods: We systematically reviewed literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and oncology conferences until September 24, 2023. We used fixed- and random-effects models to calculate hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).Results: Our meta-analysis, encompassing 19 studies with 5894 patients, revealed that in the general population, RCB I had worse EFS (HR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.75-2.58), OS (HR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.48-2.93), and DDFS (HR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.65-2.67) than RCB 0. Consistent with results from the general population, RCB I exhibited poorer EFS, OS, and DDFS in human epidermal growth factor 2-positive (HER2+) subtype and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared to RCB 0. Conversely, luminal subtype with RCB 0 and RCB I showed similar EFS (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.62-1.72).Conclusions: RCB I experienced a poorer prognosis compared to RCB 0 in the general population, a pattern also observed in the HER2+ subtype and TNBC. However, no significant prognostic disparity was noted between RCB 0 and RCB I in the luminal subtype.","PeriodicalId":10197,"journal":{"name":"Clinical breast cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical breast cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2024.11.023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of the residual cancer burden (RCB) for assessing breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly common, but the prognostic difference between RCB 0 and RCB I is unclear.

Methods: We systematically reviewed literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and oncology conferences until September 24, 2023. We used fixed- and random-effects models to calculate hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS).

Results: Our meta-analysis, encompassing 19 studies with 5894 patients, revealed that in the general population, RCB I had worse EFS (HR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.75-2.58), OS (HR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.48-2.93), and DDFS (HR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.65-2.67) than RCB 0. Consistent with results from the general population, RCB I exhibited poorer EFS, OS, and DDFS in human epidermal growth factor 2-positive (HER2+) subtype and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared to RCB 0. Conversely, luminal subtype with RCB 0 and RCB I showed similar EFS (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.62-1.72).

Conclusions: RCB I experienced a poorer prognosis compared to RCB 0 in the general population, a pattern also observed in the HER2+ subtype and TNBC. However, no significant prognostic disparity was noted between RCB 0 and RCB I in the luminal subtype.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical breast cancer 医学-肿瘤学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

3.20%

发文量

174

审稿时长

48 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Breast Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of breast cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to breast cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research reports from various therapeutic modalities, cancer genetics, drug sensitivity and resistance, novel imaging, tumor genomics, biomarkers, and chemoprevention strategies.