Overall survival of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment for breast cancer in Brazil

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: Compare the overall survival of women with non-metastatic breast cancer who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by surgery versus those who underwent surgery followed by adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted using real-world data from 2008 to 2015 available on the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Women aged ≥ 18 years with breast cancer undergoing surgery or neoadjuvant systemic therapy as their first treatment between 2008 and 2010 were included. Cohorts were matched using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio and assessed 5-year overall survival using Kaplan-Meier, compared by log-rank test and hazard ratios (HR) using Cox proportional HR model. RESULTS: A total of 23,331 women began treatment for breast cancer in SUS with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (n = 6,040) and surgery (n = 17,291). In the matched cohorts (n = 6,040 in both groups), more deaths occurred among those who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy compared with surgery as first treatment (37.3% and 19.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). Overall survival after five years was 0.641 in neoadjuvant systemic therapy and 0.816 in the surgery group (p < 0.001). For both groups, older patients (≥ 70 years) living in northern and midwestern Brazil, in municipalities with low and medium HDI, and self-declared as Black presented the lowest overall survival probabilities. Use of hormone therapy after surgery and conservative surgery instead of mastectomy were associated with higher survival. HR was 5.13 (95%CI: 2.95-8.88) in stage I, 1.57 (95%CI: 1.27-1.95) in stage II, and 1.38 (95%CI: 1.26-1.50) in stage III. CONCLUSION: Women who underwent surgery as first treatment had a significantly higher 5-year overall survival compared with those who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Socioeconomic and demographic factors influenced survival outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.