Is the benefit of using adjuvant capecitabine in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer related to pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

dc.authorid0000-0002-9921-4089
dc.authorid0000-0002-0678-4024
dc.authorid0000-0003-2688-1515
dc.authorid0000-0002-0254-1084
dc.authorid0000-0002-0631-4006
dc.authorid0000-0001-8713-7613
dc.authorid0000-0002-7555-2657
dc.contributor.authorDulgar, Ozgecan
dc.contributor.authorOven, Basak Bala
dc.contributor.authorAtci, Muhammed Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorArikan, Rukiye
dc.contributor.authorAy, Seval
dc.contributor.authorAyhan, Murat
dc.contributor.authorSelvi, Oguzhan
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:45:25Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground Triple-negative-breast-cancer (TNBC) has a poor prognosis if pathologic complete response (pCR) cannot be achieved following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The group of patients that benefit most from adjuvant capecitabine remains unclear. Materials and Methods We analyzed data of 160 consecutive patients with residual TNBC from eight cancer-center. Pathologic response was defined into two groups as having good-pathologic-response (MillerPayneGrading (MPG) IV-III) or poor-pathologic-response (MPG I-II). The characteristics of patients were compared regarding adjuvant capecitabine usage. Results Univariate-analysis revealed that age, histology, clinical-stage, tumor-size, lymph-nodes number, menopausal status, and pathological-stage were significantly different between two groups. In multivariate-analysis, menopausal status (p = 0.043) and residual tumor-size (p < 0.001) were found to be independent prognostic factors for pathological response. The hazard-ratio for disease recurrence and death in the poor-response group with adjuvant capecitabine was 2.94 (95% confidence-interval (CI), 1.21 to 7.10; p = 0.016) and 4.080 (95% CI, 1.22 to 13.64; p = 0.022), respectively. DFS (p = 0.58) and OS (p = 0.89) improvements with adjuvant capecitabine were not demonstrated in good-response groups. Conclusion This multicenter-study suggested that only the poor-response group to NAC achieved benefit from adjuvant capecitabine. Postmenopausal status and residual tumor-size were related to poor prognosis.
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14737140.2022.2076670
dc.identifier.endpage780
dc.identifier.issn1473-7140
dc.identifier.issn1744-8328
dc.identifier.issue7
dc.identifier.pmid35543015
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85131384593
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage773
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2022.2076670
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/11264
dc.identifier.volume22
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000804681400001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectTriple negative breast cancer
dc.subjectneoadjuvant chemotherapy response
dc.subjectpathological response
dc.subjectresidual tumor size
dc.subjectadjuvant capecitabine
dc.titleIs the benefit of using adjuvant capecitabine in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer related to pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar