Open Access

Comparison of overall survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective, matched case‑control study

  • Authors:
    • Chia-Hua Liu
    • Jie-Ru Yang
    • I-Chen Tsai
    • Chiann-Yi Hsu
    • Lum Chih Yean
    • Chih-Chiang Hung
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: October 21, 2022     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13557
  • Article Number: 437
  • Copyright: © Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy combined with chemotherapy is the preferred option for patients with early‑stage breast cancer who require both superior clinical and aesthetic outcomes. The present study aimed to determine the survival benefits of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early‑stage breast cancer who have undergone immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy in Taiwan. The present study compared overall survival (OS) following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in 139 patients with early‑stage breast cancer who underwent immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Patient data were used retrospectively as an unmatched cohort. Next, 37 neoadjuvant cases were matched with 37 adjuvant controls through 1:1 age‑, clinical stage‑, and molecular subtype‑matching. OS differences between the cases and controls were determined using Kaplan‑Meier survival curve analyses. Here, 77.7 and 81.1% of the unmatched and matched cohort patients were aged <50 years, respectively. Of the matched neoadjuvant cases, 10 (15.6%) reached pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, whereas 5 (13.5%) neoadjuvant cases succumbed during the study period. The neoadjuvant matched cases demonstrated a significantly poor OS with their adjuvant matched controls (P=0.044); nevertheless, the stratification analysis results demonstrated that the survival differences between the neoadjuvant and the adjuvant controls decreased after matching. Targeted therapy demonstrated the same OS benefits for both the neoadjuvant matched cases and adjuvant matched controls (P=1.000). This study provided matched case‑control evidence for the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy for patients with early‑stage breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy in a Taiwanese female population.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in the female population; based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, the main treatment for breast cancer is mastectomy (1). Although mastectomy affords a favorable survival outcome in patients with breast cancer, studies have indicated that distorted breast appearance after mastectomy is associated with an increased risk of mental health disorders, such as depression (2,3). Breast reconstruction after mastectomy may improve the cosmetic appearance and body image of patients with breast cancer, thereby enhancing their mental health and quality of life (4,5).

Growing global interest in breast reconstruction research and the growth of related studies have indicated that breast reconstruction is becoming an increasingly common options for both surgeons and patients, particularly for younger patients with breast cancer (6,7). Postmastectomy breast reconstruction may be performed immediately after the mastectomy or after systemic treatment, local treatment (radiotherapy) or both. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy has provided favorable prognostic outcomes, including simultaneous superior clinical and aesthetic outcomes, in patients with breast cancer; hence, it has become a preferred option among cancer surgeons (810).

In addition to mastectomy, systemic therapy (including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted therapy), determined according to the breast cancer subtype, is a commonly used breast cancer treatment (1113). The major concern related to postmastectomy breast reconstruction is the delay in adjuvant treatment it may cause; a delayed adjuvant treatment course is associated with worse breast cancer survival outcomes (14,15). However, breast reconstruction has been noted to increase the risk of surgical wound complications but not necessarily delay chemotherapy initiation; as such, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be an alternative treatment option for patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo breast reconstruction (16,17). Moreover, the reconstructive complication rates between a neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy cohort were similar in a Taiwanese breast cancer population with immediate breast reconstruction (18).

Chemotherapy applied in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings can provide further survival benefits for patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy (19,20). Moreover, additional radiotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted therapy can be considered depending on the clinical indications of the patient with breast cancer, such as the tumor size, lymph node invasion and molecular subtype. Survival outcome, rather than reconstruction outcome, after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy has not been compared sufficiently in patients with early-stage breast cancer who have undergone immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy in Taiwan. Therefore, a comparison has been made in this study.

Materials and methods

Data set

This retrospective case-control study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB no. CE21406B) of Taichung Veterans General Hospital (TCVGH; Taichung, Taiwan); all data were retrospectively collected from the health information system of TCVGH under this approved protocol The inclusion criteria for the study population were: i) Patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast reconstruction immediately after mastectomy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018, and ii) completion of the chemotherapy treatment course in an adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting; breast cancer diagnosed at clinical stages I and IIIB was considered early-stage. Patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Data of 139 women with breast cancer met the inclusion criteria. The clinical characteristics and treatment characteristics of the study population were extracted from the patients' medical records or the cancer registry database.

Post hoc power analysis

A post hoc power analysis for two independent groups with dichotomous outcomes was used to evaluate the statistical power of the population in the current study. It was assumed that the probability of type I error (α) was 0.05, the population size of the current study cohort was 136; the sample size of neoadjuvant cases was 64, with a mortality rate of 23.4%, and the sample size of adjuvant controls was 75, with a mortality rate of 1.3%. The case-control sample size ratio was 1.172 and the absolute difference between the two groups was 0.221. With the power estimation formula, the estimated critical Z value for the assumed α was ~2.122 (Φ), equal to the power of 0.983, indicating that the assumed sample size may lead to results with 99.5% statistical power.

For the matched case and control cohorts, there was an assumed sample size of 37 for both the neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls, with mortality rates of 14 and 0%, respectively; the case-control sample size ratio was 1 and an absolute between-group difference was 0.14. With the power estimation formula, Φ was ~0.416, equal to the power of 0.661, indicating the assumed sample size may lead to results with 66.1% statistical power. In other words, the findings of the matched cohort may only provide conservative inference.

Clinical characteristics

Several clinical characteristics were considered, including age, clinical stage and molecular subtype at diagnosis. The molecular subtypes of all patients were classified according to the results of standard histological examinations, including microscopic analysis with standard immunohistochemistry (IHC) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), which was performed on tissues from the primary tumor excised during mastectomy. Pathohistological testing was conducted in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at TCVGH. Cases with + (mild), ++ (moderate) or +++ (strong) IHC results (according to the intensity of staining) for ER and PR were defined as ER+ and PR+ cases, respectively, whereas the remaining patients were defined as ER and PR. Moreover, cases with +++ IHC result for HER2 were defined as HER2+ cases, whereas those with - or + IHC results for HER2 were defined as HER2cases. In cases with ++ IHC results for HER2, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed using VENTANA HER2 Dual ISH DNA Probe Cocktail assay to analyze the HER2-neu gene amplification status. Subsequently, cases with ++ IHC and + FISH results for HER2 were defined as HER2+, whereas the remaining cases were defined as HER2. In accordance with the classification system for molecular subtypes presented in the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 (21), breast cancer was classified as luminal A (ER+/PR+ and HER2), luminal B (ER+/PR+ and HER2+), HER2-enriched (ER/PR and HER2+) or triple-negative (ER/PR and HER2).

Overall survival (OS) was considered a primary endpoint; patients who succumbed during the within-study follow-up duration were considered left-censored, whereas the remaining patients were considered right-censored. The follow-up interval was between the date of initial diagnosis and the date of censoring.

Treatment characteristics

The treatment characteristics of the study population were classified according to the treatment type: Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy or targeted therapy (e.g. anti-HER2 therapy). In all patients, the treatment selection was mainly dependent on the individual clinical indications (i.e., age, tumor size, lymph node invasion and molecular subtype at diagnosis), as suggested by the NCCN guidelines for breast cancer treatment (1). The chemotherapy drugs used in the current settings included an anthracycline (epirubicin) with an alkylating agent (cyclophosphamide) followed by a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel). An antineoplastic agent (carboplatin) was used for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-enriched breast cancer. Most patients with T3, T4 or lymph node metastasis received intensity-modulated radiotherapy, whereas a few patients were treated with external beam radiation therapy. The hormone therapy agents used in premenopausal and postmenopausal patients were tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole or anastrozole), respectively. Dual-blockade anti-HER2 agents (i.e. pertuzumab and trastuzumab) were used for HER2-enriched patients. Here, pertuzumab was administered at 840 mg in the first cycle and then at 420 mg in the following cycles, whereas trastuzumab was administered at 8 mg/kg in the first cycle and then at 6 mg/kg in the following cycles. All HER2-enriched patients received complete dual-blockade or single-blockade therapy for one year.

Unmatched and matched cohort

The overall study population that underwent immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy was considered an unmatched cohort, comprising 75 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and 64 control patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The treatment responses after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were reported. Furthermore, age group, clinical stage and molecular subtype at diagnosis were used as matching criteria to generate a well-balanced case-control subgroup matched at a 1:1 ratio, to further reduce the bias and clarify the feasibility role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in the study population. In this study, 37 neoadjuvant cases were well matched with 37 adjuvant controls, which was used as a matched cohort (n=74).

Statistical analysis

The clinical characteristics, treatment characteristics and OS rates of the study population are presented the mean ± SD or as frequencies and percentages. All analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.2; R core team, 2021). The distribution difference of baseline characteristics between the cases and controls was estimated using an independent two-sample Student's t-test, χ2 test or Fisher's exact test. The survival rates and the correspond 95% confidence interval (CI) of different subgroups were computed using Kaplan-Meier estimators, and OS was compared between the subgroups using the log-rank test. A post-hoc pairwise log-rank test were performed for multiple comparison correction. All P-values were two-sided, and P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

Patient clinical characteristics

Table I summarizes the clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and OS of the unmatched cohort. The mean age at diagnosis of the unmatched cohort was 43.0±8.6 years; 31 (22.3%) of the patients were aged ≥50 and 108 (77.7%) were <50 years. The mean ages at diagnosis of the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases were 44.1±9.2 and 41.8±7.8 years, respectively, and the differences between the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases were non-significant (P=0.117). Similar ratios were obtained for the age group distribution between the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases. However, the clinical stages at diagnosis differed significantly between the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases. For example, significantly more neoadjuvant cases were at clinical stages II and III compare with the adjuvant controls (79.7 vs. 45.3% and 15.6 vs. 1.3%, respectively; both P<0.001). Moreover, more neoadjuvant cases received radiotherapy compared with the adjuvant controls (53.1 vs. 32.0%; P=0.012). According to the clinical tumor staging, the tumor sizes ranged between 2 and 5 cm; most patients were at stages T1 (n=51; 36.7%) or T2 (n=76; 54.7%), followed by those at T3 (n=8; 5.8%). One (0.7%) patient in the adjuvant group was at TisN1; the remaining 3 (2.2%) patients were neoadjuvant cases at stage T4 at diagnosis. However, their tumor size decreased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy to a pathological tumor stage of T3, T4b or T1a. In total, 19 (13.7%) HER2-enriched breast cancer, 87 (62.6%) luminal A breast cancer, 26 (18.7%) luminal B breast cancer and 7 (5.0%) TNBC cases were identified in the unmatched cohort; the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases demonstrated a similar molecular subtype distribution (P=0.453). The proportions of neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls receiving hormone and targeted therapy demonstrated a non-significant difference. In addition, 10 (15.6%) of the 64 neoadjuvant cases reached pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, 16 (11.5%) patients succumbed during follow-up; this proportion was higher among neoadjuvant cases compared with adjuvant controls (23.4 vs. 1.3%; P<0.001).

Table I.

Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and overall survival status of patients treated with adjuvant (n=75) and neoadjuvant (n=64) chemotherapy in the unmatched cohort (n=139).

Table I.

Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and overall survival status of patients treated with adjuvant (n=75) and neoadjuvant (n=64) chemotherapy in the unmatched cohort (n=139).

Clinicopathological characteristicsUnmatched cohort, n (%)Adjuvant, n (%)Neoadjuvant, n (%) P-valuea
Age, years (mean ± SD)43.0±8.644.1±9.241.8±7.80.117
Age group 0.603
  <50 years108 (77.7)57 (76.0)51 (79.7)
  ≥50 years31 (22.3)18 (24.0)13 (20.3)
Clinical tumor staging <0.001
  is1 (0.7)1 (1.3)0 (0.0)
  151 (36.7)41 (54.7)10 (15.6)
  276 (54.7)32 (42.7)44 (68.8)
  38 (5.8)1 (1.3)7 (10.9)
  43 (2.2)0 (0.0)3 (4.7)
Clinical node staging <0.001
  092 (66.2)68 (90.7)24 (37.5)
  142 (30.2)7 (9.3)35 (54.7)
  25 (3.6)0 (0.0)5 (7.8)
Clinical stage <0.001
  I43 (30.9)40 (53.3)3 (4.7)
  II85 (61.2)34 (45.3)51 (79.7)
  III11 (7.9)1 (1.3)10 (15.6)
Molecular subtype 0.453
  HER2-enriched19 (13.7)10 (13.3)9 (14.1)
  Luminal A87 (62.6)51 (68.0)36 (56.3)
  Luminal B26 (18.7)11 (14.7)15 (23.4)
  TNBC7 (5.0)3 (4.0)4 (6.3)
Treatment response, pCRn/an/a10 (15.6)n/a
Treatment
  Radiotherapy58 (41.7)24 (32.0)34 (53.1)0.012
  Hormone therapy105 (75.5)59 (78.7)46 (71.9)0.353
  Targeted therapy41 (29.5)17 (22.7)24 (37.5)0.056
  Mortality16 (11.5)1 (1.3)15 (23.4)<0.001

a P-values were calculated using independent two-sample t-test, χ2 and Fisher's exact test. HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; n/a, not applicable; pCR, pathologic complete response; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

OS comparison in the unmatched cohort

Fig. 1 presents the Kaplan-Meier plots for OS of the different subgroups in the unmatched cohort. The OS rates (95% CI) of the neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls were 50 (28.5-87.7) and 98.5% (95.5-100), respectively (Fig. 1A), with the neoadjuvant cases exhibiting significantly poorer OS compared with the adjuvant controls (P<0.001). Among the neoadjuvant cases, the OS rate was higher in patients who achieved pCR compared with those who did not [100 vs. 42.9% (95% CI, 21.4-86.1); P=0.072; Fig. 1B].

OS comparison based on molecular subtypes in the unmatched cohort

Fig. 1C and D present a comparison of the OS according to different molecular subtypes among the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases, respectively. The difference in OS between the adjuvant controls with different molecular subtypes was significant (P<0.001; Fig. 1C). The survival curves of individuals with HER2-enriched, luminal A and luminal B breast cancer overlapped because they had similar survival outcomes; their OS rates were all 100%, whereas the OS rate in individuals with TNBC was 66.7% (95% CI, 30–100). However, the post-hoc pairwise comparison results revealed that individuals with TNBC had significantly poorer OS only when compared with those with luminal A breast cancer (P<0.001). By contrast, the differences in the neoadjuvant cases with different molecular subtypes were not significant (P=0.029; Fig. 1D). The discrepancy between neoadjuvant cases with TNBC and those with other subtypes was large in the post-hoc pairwise comparison: The differences between neoadjuvant cases with TNBC (40.0% OS; 95% CI, 13.7-100) and those with HER2-enriched (83.3% OS; 95% CI, 58.3-100; P=0.560), luminal A (44.0% OS; 95% CI, 21.0-92.3; P=0.300) and luminal B (84.4% OS; 95% CI, 66.6-100; P=0.300) breast cancer were not significant. Taken together, both the neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls with TNBC demonstrated poor OS, whereas neoadjuvant therapy led to no OS benefits in the patients with luminal A breast cancer (blue lines in Fig. 1C and D; the adjuvant controls achieved improved OS outcome compared to neoadjuvant cases). Moreover, the patients with HER2-enriched and luminal B breast cancer in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant cohorts demonstrated similar OS improvement.

OS comparison based on treatment subgroups in the unmatched cohort

Fig. 2 presents a comparison of the OS between the adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases in the unmatched cohort according to their treatment characteristics. In both the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings, the combined use of chemotherapy either with radiotherapy [95.7% (95% CI, 87.7-100) vs. 54.4%, (95% CI, 33.4-88.7), respectively; P=0.058; Fig. 2A] or with targeted therapy [91.7% (95% CI, 77.3-100) vs. 40.7% (95% CI, 10.0-88.7), respectively; P=0.314; Fig. 2C] led to different OS outcomes which were not significant. The neoadjuvant cases demonstrated significantly poorer OS than did the adjuvant controls in the subgroups without radiotherapy (100 vs. 0%, respectively; P=0.001; Fig. 2B) and without therapy [91.7%, (95% CI, 77.3–100%) vs. 40.7% (95% CI, 29.1–100%); P<0.001; Fig. 2D].

The patients who received hormone therapy combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated significantly poorer OS than those who received hormone therapy combined with adjuvant chemotherapy [100 vs. 52.4%, respectively; 95% CI, 27–100%, P<0.001; Fig. 2E]. By contrast, no significant difference was identified between the patients who did not receive hormone therapy in the adjuvant control [90.9% (95% CI, 75.4–100%)] and neoadjuvant case [47.3% (95% CI, 20.1–100%) groups (P=0.171; Fig. 2F)].

Clinical characteristics of the matched cohort

To further understand the survival differences between the matched neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls, an age-matched, clinical stage-matched and molecular subtype-matched cohort was generated comprising 74 patients (n=37 patients/group). Table II presents the distribution of the clinicopathological characteristics, treatment characteristics and OS rates in the matched cohort. The mean age at diagnosis in the matched cohort was 42.0±8.4 years; 60 (81.1%) patients in this cohort were <50 years old. Because one adjuvant control at clinical stage III did not match with any of the neoadjuvant cases based on the aforementioned criteria, the matched cohort did not include patients at clinical stage III. The matched cohort contained 6 (8.1%) clinical stage I and 68 (91.9%) clinical stage II cases. The distribution of molecular subtypes was similar to that of the unmatched cohort; thus, the treatment characteristics also demonstrated a similar distribution between the matched neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls. In total, 5 (13.5%) of the 37 matched cases achieved pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, 5 (13.5%) patients died during the follow-up duration; all of these patients were matched neoadjuvant cases (P=0.054) not in receipt of pCR.

Table II.

Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment characteristics, and overall survival status of patients treated with adjuvant (n=37) and neoadjuvant (n=37) chemotherapy, in the matched cohort (n=74).

Table II.

Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment characteristics, and overall survival status of patients treated with adjuvant (n=37) and neoadjuvant (n=37) chemotherapy, in the matched cohort (n=74).

Clinicopathological characteristicsMatched cohort, n (%)Adjuvant, n (%)Neoadjuvant, n (%) P-valuea
Age, years (mean ± SD)42.0±8.442.7±9.341.2±7.40.458
Age groupb 1.000
  <50 years60 (81.1)30 (81.1)30 (81.1)
  ≥50 years14 (18.9)7 (18.9)7 (18.9)
Clinical stageb 1.000
  I6 (8.1)3 (8.1)3 (8.1)
  II68 (91.9)34 (91.9)34 (91.9)
  III---
Molecular subtypeb 1.000
  HER2-enriched6 (8.1)3 (8.1)3 (8.1)
  Luminal A56 (75.7)28 (75.7)28 (75.7)
  Luminal B10 (13.5)5 (13.5)5 (13.5)
  TNBC2 (2.7)1 (2.7)1 (2.7)
Treatment response, pCR--5 (13.5)-
Treatment
  Radiotherapy30 (40.5)12 (32.4)18 (48.6)0.155
  Hormone therapy60 (81.1)31 (83.8)29 (78.4)0.553
  Targeted therapy13 (17.6)5 (13.5)8 (21.6)0.359
  Mortality5 (6.8)-5 (13.5)0.054

a P-value is estimated using independent two-sampled t-test, χ2 and Fisher's exact test.

b Matching criteria including clinical stage and HER2 status. HER2, human epidermal receptor-2; pCR, pathologic complete response; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

OS comparison in the matched cohort

Fig. 3 presents the Kaplan-Meier plots for the OS of the different subgroups in the matched cohort. The neoadjuvant cases demonstrated significantly poorer OS compared with the adjuvant controls [63.3% (95% CI, 37.5-100) vs. 100%, respectively; P=0.044; Fig. 3A]. However, in terms of treatment characteristics and molecular subtypes, the neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls demonstrated differences which were not significant (Fig. 3B-D). In addition, similar survival curves were noted in the population with poor OS, as shown in Fig. 3A (blue line, matched neoadjuvant cases), B (red line, non-pCR matched neoadjuvant cases) and D (blue line, luminal A matched neoadjuvant cases). Mortality events were also only noted in the neoadjuvant cases with luminal A breast cancer [OS rate=71.8% (95% CI, 49.3–100%); Fig. 3D, blue line].

OS comparison based on treatment subgroups in the matched cohort

As shown in Fig. 4, the matched neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls demonstrated similar survival outcomes for those without radiotherapy (P=1.000; Fig. 4B) and hormone therapy (P=0.480; Fig. 4F). While the matched adjuvant controls with radiotherapy (P=0.171; Fig. 4A) and hormone therapy (P=0.074; Fig. 4E) showed improved survival outcomes compared with matched neoadjuvant cases. However, the matched neoadjuvant cases who did not receive targeted therapy [OS rate=60.4%; 95% CI, 34.8-100] demonstrated significantly poorer OS than the matched adjuvant controls who did not receive targeted therapy (OS rate=100%; 95% CI; P=0.044; Fig. 4D). However, the combined use of targeted therapy and chemotherapy led to the same favorable OS in both the matched adjuvant controls and neoadjuvant cases (P=1.000; Fig. 4C).

Discussion

In this study, a comparison was made on the long-term OS outcomes after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in Taiwanese women with breast cancer who had received immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy, by using a retrospective matched case-control design. The OS outcome was similar between the matched neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls who also received targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy. Moreover, the patients with luminal A breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, including those who received the therapy in combination with hormone therapy or radiotherapy, demonstrated poorer OS.

The benefits of undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy after immediate breast reconstruction have been well studied over the last ten years (22,23). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was introduced to facilitate tumor shrinkage and thus improve the outcomes of mastectomy or other relevant treatment modalities (24). In the findings of present study, relatively more neoadjuvant cases were at clinical stage II or III because of the beneficial effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which were particularly notable in the patients with breast cancer with advanced tumor sizes or aggressive tumor characteristics. Although the application of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after breast reconstruction has been controversial (i.e. the accuracy of lymph nodes status following neoadjuvant chemotherapy), studies have suggested that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a safe therapeutic option for patients with breast cancer who undergo immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy (25). Studies involving Taiwanese populations have also indicated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy leads to further advancement of tumor characteristics and that local recurrence rates over a limited follow-up interval are comparable, which is consisted with the present findings (18).

In the current study, the OS benefits were similar in both the matched neoadjuvant cases and adjuvant controls who also underwent targeted therapy. A previous study suggested that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the preferred treatment strategy for patients with TNBC and HER2-enriched breast cancer (26), and the addition of an anti-HER2 regimen in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings can lead to favorable survival outcomes (2729). However, in the present study, the treatment benefits of chemotherapy in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings were not observed in the patients with luminal A breast cancer following matching, which contrasts with the findings of a previous study (30). This may be due to the small sample size used in the current study. Therefore, the present findings should be interpreted with caution.

The current results reveal that 77.7% of the unmatched and 81.8% of the matched patients were <50 years old, indicating that the preference for immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy decreases with age. Studies have demonstrated that compared with older patients, younger patients with breast cancer are physiologically healthier, which makes them better candidates for breast reconstruction (7,31). Breast cancer in younger patients is likely to be more aggressive, leading to poorer quality of life and more mental health issues; however, the younger breast cancer cohort is also preferred for reconstructive options (7,31,32). Moreover, the recent increase in the awareness and knowledge of, the increase in communication with professionals on and the development of decision support tools related to breast reconstruction may have also led to the increase in the preference for breast reconstruction among the younger breast cancer cohort (33,34). Nevertheless, breast reconstruction outcomes have demonstrated no notable differences among different age groups (31,35).

The retrospective nature of this study limited the inclusion of additional OS-related characteristics. In addition, all data were collected from a single institution, potentially limiting the generalizability of the current findings; the small sample size possibly also limited the practical analysis. Furthermore, because of the imbalance in the distribution of the OS rates between the cases and controls, Cox regression analysis could not be applied to our data. Therefore, the survival analysis was performed using only non-parametric methods, including the Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test. Despite these limitations, the present study, using both unmatched and matched case-control cohorts, provides reasonable evidence for OS differences after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that the long-term OS outcomes between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy groups were comparable in patients with early-stage breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. This supports the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy in Taiwanese female patients with early-stage breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, the low power of our matched cohort restricts the generalizability of this finding. Therefore, in a future study, a multicenter prospective design to increase the sample size and statistical power to verify the current findings will be implemented. Moreover, additional relevant clinical characteristics and outcomes, such as drug information, treatment responses to specific drugs, laboratory measurements and disease progression status will be included. Finally, the future study will use a longitudinal model to investigate the time-varying or dose-varying effects of chemotherapeutic and targeted therapeutic agents.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Clinical Informatics Research & Development Center and Cancer Registry database of Taichung Veterans General Hospital (Taichung, Taiwan) for their support with clinical data management.

Funding

Funding: No funding was received.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

CHL and CCH conceptualized the study, reviewed the literature and wrote and revised the manuscript. JRY and ICT collected the data and revised the manuscript. CYH and LCY analyzed the data and interpreted the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. CCH and CYH confirm the authenticity of all the raw data.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The data protocol of this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board Taichung Veterans General Hospital (IRB no. CE21406B) with a waiver of informed consents.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison KH, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Dang C, Elias AD, et al: NCCN guidelines® insights: Breast cancer, version 4.2021. J Natxl Compr Canc Netw. 19:484–493. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Chen W, Lv X, Xu X, Gao X and Wang B: Meta-analysis for psychological impact of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 25:464–469. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Maass SW, Roorda C, Berendsen AJ, Verhaak PF and de Bock GH: The prevalence of long-term symptoms of depression and anxiety after breast cancer treatment: A systematic review. Maturitas. 82:100–108. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Padmalatha S, Tsai YT, Ku HC, Wu YL, Yu T, Fang SY and Ko NY: Higher risk of depression after total mastectomy versus breast reconstruction among adult women with breast cancer: A systematic review and metaregression. Clin Breast Cancer. 21:e526–e538. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Chopra D and Robb G: Body image: Integral aspect of psychosocial evaluation for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Breast J. 26:1929–1930. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Li Y, Wang X, Thomsen JB, Nahabedian MY, Ishii N, Rozen WM, Long X and Ho YS: Research trends and performances of breast reconstruction: A bibliometric analysis. Ann Transl Med. 8:15292020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Rodby KA, Robinson E, Danielson KK, Quinn KP and Antony AK: Age-dependent characteristics in women with breast cancer: Mastectomy and reconstructive trends at an urban academic institution. Am Surg. 82:227–235. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

See MH, Sinnadurai S, Lai LL, Tan KL, The MS, Teoh LY, Jamaris S, Abdul Malik R and Bhoo-Pathy N: Outcomes after mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer in a multiethnic, middle-income Asian setting. Surgery. 170:1604–1609. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Agarwal J, Agarwal S, Pappas L and Neumayer L: A population-based study of breast cancer-specific survival following mastectomy and immediate or early-delayed breast reconstruction. Breast J. 18:226–232. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Ou KW, Yu JC, Ho MH, Chiu WK, Ou KL, Chen TM and Chen SG: Oncological safety and outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction: A single-centered experience in Taiwan. Ann Plast Surg. 74 (Suppl 2):S127–S131. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Ali AM, Provenzano E, Bartlett JM, Abraham J, Driver K, Munro AF, Twelves C, Poole CJ, Hiller L, Dunn JA, et al: Prognosis of early breast cancer by immunohistochemistry defined intrinsic sub-types in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in the NEAT/BR9601 trial. Int J Cancer. 133:1470–1478. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Wu F, Hu CH, Jiang SA, Lu FG, Lin MH and Deng XG: Herceptin plus adjuvant chemotherapy for the prognosis of patients with human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 positive early-stage breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 32:684–689. 2007.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI

13 

Bonneterre J, Roché H, Kerbrat P, Brémond A, Fumoleau P, Namer M, Goudier MJ, Schraub S, Fargeot P and Chapelle-Marcillac I: Epirubicin increases long-term survival in adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with poor-prognosis, node-positive, early breast cancer: 10-Year follow-up results of the French adjuvant study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 23:2686–2693. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Brazda A, Estroff J, Euhus D, Leitch AM, Huth J, Andrews V, Moldrem A and Rao R: Delays in time to treatment and survival impact in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 17 (Suppl 3):S291–S296. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Gagliato Dde M, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, Theriault RL, Giordano SH, Valero V, Hortobagyi GN and Chavez-Macgregor M: Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 32:735–744. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Mortenson MM, Schneider PD, Khatri VP, Stevenson TR, Whetzel TP, Sommerhaug EJ, Goodnight JE Jr and Bold RJ: Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy increases wound complications: However, initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is not delayed. Arch Surg. 139:988–991. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Baek SH, Bae SJ, Yoon CI, Park SE, Cha CH, Ahn SG, Kim YS, Roh TS and Jeong J: Immediate breast reconstruction does not have a clinically significant impact on adjuvant treatment delay and subsequent survival outcomes. J Breast Cancer. 22:109–119. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Yang JR, Kuo WL, Yu CC, Chen SC and Huang JJ: Reconstructive outcome analysis of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on immediate breast reconstruction: A retrospective cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer. 21:5222021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Varghese J, Gohari SS, Rizki H, Faheem M, Langridge B, Kümmel S, Johnson L and Schmid P: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on complications following immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 55:55–62. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

O'Connell RL, Rattay T, Dave RV, Trickey A, Skillman J, Barnes NLP, Gardiner M, Harnett A, Potter S, Holcombe C, et al: The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: The iBRA-2 study. Br J Cancer. 120:883–895. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B and Senn HJ; Panel members, : Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: Highlights of the St Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 24:2206–2223. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Zhong T, Hofer SO, McCready DR, Jacks LM, Cook FE and Baxter N: A comparison of surgical complications between immediate breast reconstruction and mastectomy: The impact on delivery of chemotherapy-an analysis of 391 procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 19:560–566. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Hamahata A, Kubo K, Takei H, Saitou T, Hayashi Y, Matsumoto H, Nagai S, Inoue K, Kurosumi M, Yamaki T and Sakurai H: Impact of immediate breast reconstruction on postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy: A single center study. Breast Cancer. 22:287–291. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

O'Halloran N, Lowery A, Curran C, McLaughlin R, Malone C, Sweeney K, Keane M and Kerin M: A review of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast surgery practice and outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer. 19:377–382. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Riba J, de Romani SE and Masia J: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment and the evidence-based interaction with immediate autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 45:25–31. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Montemurro F, Nuzzolese I and Ponzone R: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 21:1071–1082. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

González-Santiago S, Saura C, Ciruelos E, Alonso JL, de la Morena P, Santisteban Eslava M, Gallegos Sancho MI, de Luna A, Dalmau E, Servitja S, et al: Real-world effectiveness of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab and trastuzumab for neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer (The NEOPETRA Study). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 184:469–479. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Hassett MJ, Li H, Burstein HJ and Punglia RS: Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer: Cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 181:43–51. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Okamoto M, Tajiri W, Ueo H, Masuda T, Ijichi H, Koga C, Nakamura Y, Taguchi K, Ohno S and Tokunaga E: Efficacy of Adjuvant combination therapy with trastuzumab and chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: A single institutional cohort study from clinical practice. Anticancer Res. 40:3315–3323. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Sandberg LJ, Clemens MW, Symmans WF, Valero V, Caudle AS, Smith B, Kuerer HM, Hsu L and Kronowitz SJ: Molecular profiling using breast cancer subtype to plan for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 139:586e–596e. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Lee CN and Foster RD: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy in young women. Breast Dis. 23:47–52. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Chang YC, Hu WY, Chang YM and Chiu SC: Changes in sexual life experienced by women in Taiwan after receiving treatment for breast cancer. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 14:16543432019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Lin PJ, Fang SY and Kuo YL: Development and usability testing of a decision support app for women considering breast reconstruction surgery. J Cancer Educ. 36:160–167. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Momoh AO, Griffith KA, Hawley ST, Morrow M, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, Shumway D, Katz SJ and Jagsi R: Patterns and correlates of knowledge, communication, and receipt of breast reconstruction in a modern population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 144:303–313. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

August DA, Wilkins E and Rea T: Breast reconstruction in older women. Surgery. 115:663–668. 1994.PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

December-2022
Volume 24 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Liu C, Yang J, Tsai I, Hsu C, Yean LC and Hung C: Comparison of overall survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective, matched case‑control study. Oncol Lett 24: 437, 2022
APA
Liu, C., Yang, J., Tsai, I., Hsu, C., Yean, L.C., & Hung, C. (2022). Comparison of overall survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective, matched case‑control study. Oncology Letters, 24, 437. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13557
MLA
Liu, C., Yang, J., Tsai, I., Hsu, C., Yean, L. C., Hung, C."Comparison of overall survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective, matched case‑control study". Oncology Letters 24.6 (2022): 437.
Chicago
Liu, C., Yang, J., Tsai, I., Hsu, C., Yean, L. C., Hung, C."Comparison of overall survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer with immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective, matched case‑control study". Oncology Letters 24, no. 6 (2022): 437. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2022.13557