{"title":"对 HER2 阳性乳腺癌患者传统治疗中增加的免疫疗法进行系统回顾","authors":"Rohan Choudhari","doi":"10.1016/j.ibreh.2024.100013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Breast Cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the UK with a variety of subtypes. One of the more invasive and aggressive subtypes is known as ‘HER 2 positive’, referring to the overexpression of HER 2 receptors on cancer cells. Traditionally, surgical intervention alongside chemotherapy in these invasive subtypes is the preferred and recognised treatment. However, recent literature suggests newer immunotherapeutic agents approved by NICE could be beneficial to treat HER 2 Positive patients as an addition or even a substitute over traditional treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To perform a systematic review of added Immunotherapy in traditional treatment in HER2 Positive Breast Cancer Patients</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was conducted using four medical databases in 2022. These were PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria included Females aged 18 years and above diagnosed with HER2+ breast cancer using immunotherapy as the intervention comparing it with chemotherapy and looking at pCR and survival rates as the outcome. Exclusion criteria was also present excluding terms like ‘triple negative breast cancer’. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>After study selection processes, seven studies were used in this review. Five of the studies were randomised controlled trials and two of the studies were follow up studies. The randomised controlled trial results clearly showed a better pCR and survival rate for patients which had two immunotherapeutic agents compared to one, and patients who has chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, compared to patients who only had immunotherapy.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>It was clear that two immunotherapeutic agents alongside chemotherapy was the most effective treatment for patients also producing the best pCR and survival rates. Limitations of studies included short follow up periods and lack of binding of participants in the trials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100675,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Practice in Breast Health","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100013"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000137/pdfft?md5=9a619717b77d3b3386df710e4d23607e&pid=1-s2.0-S2950212824000137-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of added immunotherapy in traditional treatment for HER2 positive breast cancer patients\",\"authors\":\"Rohan Choudhari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ibreh.2024.100013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Breast Cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the UK with a variety of subtypes. One of the more invasive and aggressive subtypes is known as ‘HER 2 positive’, referring to the overexpression of HER 2 receptors on cancer cells. Traditionally, surgical intervention alongside chemotherapy in these invasive subtypes is the preferred and recognised treatment. However, recent literature suggests newer immunotherapeutic agents approved by NICE could be beneficial to treat HER 2 Positive patients as an addition or even a substitute over traditional treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To perform a systematic review of added Immunotherapy in traditional treatment in HER2 Positive Breast Cancer Patients</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was conducted using four medical databases in 2022. These were PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria included Females aged 18 years and above diagnosed with HER2+ breast cancer using immunotherapy as the intervention comparing it with chemotherapy and looking at pCR and survival rates as the outcome. Exclusion criteria was also present excluding terms like ‘triple negative breast cancer’. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>After study selection processes, seven studies were used in this review. Five of the studies were randomised controlled trials and two of the studies were follow up studies. The randomised controlled trial results clearly showed a better pCR and survival rate for patients which had two immunotherapeutic agents compared to one, and patients who has chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, compared to patients who only had immunotherapy.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>It was clear that two immunotherapeutic agents alongside chemotherapy was the most effective treatment for patients also producing the best pCR and survival rates. Limitations of studies included short follow up periods and lack of binding of participants in the trials.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovative Practice in Breast Health\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100013\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000137/pdfft?md5=9a619717b77d3b3386df710e4d23607e&pid=1-s2.0-S2950212824000137-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovative Practice in Breast Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Practice in Breast Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景乳腺癌是英国发病率最高的癌症之一,有多种亚型。其中一种更具侵袭性和侵袭性的亚型被称为 "HER 2 阳性",指的是癌细胞上的 HER 2 受体过度表达。传统上,对于这些侵袭性亚型,首选和公认的治疗方法是手术干预和化疗。然而,最近的文献表明,经 NICE 批准的新型免疫治疗药物可用于治疗 HER2 阳性患者,作为传统治疗方法的补充甚至替代。方法使用 2022 年的四个医学数据库进行文献检索。这四个数据库是 PubMed、Scopus、EMBASE 和 Web of Science。纳入标准包括年龄在 18 岁及以上、确诊为 HER2+ 乳腺癌的女性患者,以免疫疗法为干预手段,将其与化疗进行比较,并将 pCR 和生存率作为研究结果。排除标准还包括排除 "三阴性乳腺癌 "等术语。结果经过研究筛选过程后,本综述采用了七项研究。其中五项研究为随机对照试验,两项为随访研究。随机对照试验结果明确显示,使用两种免疫治疗药物的患者与使用一种药物的患者相比,pCR 和生存率更高;与仅使用免疫治疗的患者相比,在使用化疗的同时使用免疫治疗的患者的pCR 和生存率更高。研究的局限性包括随访时间短和试验参与者缺乏约束力。
Systematic review of added immunotherapy in traditional treatment for HER2 positive breast cancer patients
Background
Breast Cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the UK with a variety of subtypes. One of the more invasive and aggressive subtypes is known as ‘HER 2 positive’, referring to the overexpression of HER 2 receptors on cancer cells. Traditionally, surgical intervention alongside chemotherapy in these invasive subtypes is the preferred and recognised treatment. However, recent literature suggests newer immunotherapeutic agents approved by NICE could be beneficial to treat HER 2 Positive patients as an addition or even a substitute over traditional treatments.
Objective
To perform a systematic review of added Immunotherapy in traditional treatment in HER2 Positive Breast Cancer Patients
Methods
A literature search was conducted using four medical databases in 2022. These were PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria included Females aged 18 years and above diagnosed with HER2+ breast cancer using immunotherapy as the intervention comparing it with chemotherapy and looking at pCR and survival rates as the outcome. Exclusion criteria was also present excluding terms like ‘triple negative breast cancer’. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of studies.
Results
After study selection processes, seven studies were used in this review. Five of the studies were randomised controlled trials and two of the studies were follow up studies. The randomised controlled trial results clearly showed a better pCR and survival rate for patients which had two immunotherapeutic agents compared to one, and patients who has chemotherapy alongside immunotherapy, compared to patients who only had immunotherapy.
Discussion
It was clear that two immunotherapeutic agents alongside chemotherapy was the most effective treatment for patients also producing the best pCR and survival rates. Limitations of studies included short follow up periods and lack of binding of participants in the trials.