Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, and Neoadjuvant Chemo-Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Yi Yuan, Ning Cui, Ziyi Xu, Chang Cui, Zongpeng Zhou, Zhefu Ma
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, and Neoadjuvant Chemo-Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Yi Yuan, Ning Cui, Ziyi Xu, Chang Cui, Zongpeng Zhou, Zhefu Ma","doi":"10.1155/tbj/1670410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Neoadjuvant therapy before surgery offers varying benefits as a well-established treatment option for breast cancer. This study specifically evaluated the effectiveness of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), and neoadjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy (NCET) in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer. This meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searching was conducted to retrieve articles from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang. The primary outcome measured by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) focused on assessing pooled effect sizes. Random-effects or fixed-effect models were conducted according to the existence of statistical heterogeneity. A total of 15 eligible articles were included in the analysis. The results indicated clinical response (CR) (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.73; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 39.6%) and clinical complete response (cCR) (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.85; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 68.0%) after NET was significantly higher than NCT. However, no significant difference was shown in pathological complete response (pCR) (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.04; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.0%) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.04; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.0%). The combined paradigm of NCET presented no significant improvement compared with monotherapy of NET or NCT. Overall, both NET and NCT are effective neoadjuvant treatment options for patients with ER+ breast cancer. More explicit clinical decision indicators need to be further clarified. And NCET does not offer additional benefits over NET or NCT in patients with ER+ breast cancer.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":56326,"journal":{"name":"Breast Journal","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/tbj/1670410","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/tbj/1670410","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Neoadjuvant therapy before surgery offers varying benefits as a well-established treatment option for breast cancer. This study specifically evaluated the effectiveness of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), and neoadjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy (NCET) in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer. This meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searching was conducted to retrieve articles from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang. The primary outcome measured by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) focused on assessing pooled effect sizes. Random-effects or fixed-effect models were conducted according to the existence of statistical heterogeneity. A total of 15 eligible articles were included in the analysis. The results indicated clinical response (CR) (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.73; I2 = 39.6%) and clinical complete response (cCR) (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.85; I2 = 68.0%) after NET was significantly higher than NCT. However, no significant difference was shown in pathological complete response (pCR) (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.04; I2 = 0.0%) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.04; I2 = 0.0%). The combined paradigm of NCET presented no significant improvement compared with monotherapy of NET or NCT. Overall, both NET and NCT are effective neoadjuvant treatment options for patients with ER+ breast cancer. More explicit clinical decision indicators need to be further clarified. And NCET does not offer additional benefits over NET or NCT in patients with ER+ breast cancer.
期刊介绍:
The Breast Journal is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary source devoted exclusively to all facets of research, diagnosis, and treatment of breast disease. The Breast Journal encompasses the latest news and technologies from the many medical specialties concerned with breast disease care in order to address the disease within the context of an integrated breast health care. This editorial philosophy recognizes the special social, sexual, and psychological considerations that distinguish cancer, and breast cancer in particular, from other serious diseases. Topics specifically within the scope of The Breast Journal include:
Risk Factors
Prevention
Early Detection
Diagnosis and Therapy
Psychological Issues
Quality of Life
Biology of Breast Cancer.