Purpose The use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has been debated because it may be a causative factor in adjuvant treatment delay and may subsequently increase the probability of recurrence. We investigated whether IBR was related to adjuvant treatment delay and survival outcomes. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the duration from operation to adjuvant treatment administration and survival outcomes according to IBR status among patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy from January 2005 to December 2014. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the clinicopathologic baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not undergo IBR. Results Of 646 patients, 107 (16.6%) underwent IBR, and the median follow-up was 72 months. The median duration from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly longer in patients who underwent IBR than in those who did not (14 vs. 12 days, respectively, p = 0.008). Based on propensity score matching, patients who underwent IBR received adjuvant therapy 3 days later than those who did not (14 vs. 11 days, respectively, p = 0.044). The duration from surgery to post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. Local recurrence-free survival, regional recurrence-free survival, systemic recurrence-free survival, and overall survival were also not significantly different between the 2 groups ( p = 0.427, p = 0.445, p = 0.269, and p = 0.250, respectively). In the case-matched cohort, survival outcomes did not change. Conclusion IBR was associated with a modest increase in the duration from surgery to chemotherapy that was statistically but not clinically significant. Moreover, IBR had no influence on PMRT delay or survival outcomes, suggesting that it is an acceptable option for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer undergoing mastectomy.
Purpose: The discernible PD-L1 staining of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes occupying ≥ 1% of the tumor area is considered SP142 PD-L1 positive for atezolizumab, and the PD-L1 status of multiple samples within a single patient could be discrepant. In this study, we evaluated the PD-L1 status by using the SP142 clone in serially collected matched samples from the same individuals with early or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Method: the SP142 PD-L1 assay was performed using biopsies and surgical specimens from 77 patients with early TNBC. Among these patients, 47 underwent upfront surgery, and 30 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) between biopsy and surgery. PD-L1 assays were performed at least twice in 8/12 (66.7%) patients with metastatic TNBC treated with atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel. Results: Of the 47 patients who underwent upfront surgery, 15/47 (31.9%) had PD-L1+ on biopsied samples. PD-L1+ rates in the biopsy and surgical specimens increased to 66.0% (33 of 47) after subsequent surgery. Similarly, in the 30 patients with residual invasive cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the PD-L1+ rate increased from 46.6% at baseline to 74.2% after surgery. In the 77 patients with early TNBC, multiple PD-L1 testing in the biopsies and surgical specimens significantly increased the number of patients with PD-L1+ compared with the number of patients with PD-L1+ assessed with initial biopsy samples alone (68.8% vs. 37.6%; p = 0.00002). Among the metastatic TNBC patients, those with constant PD-L1+ over 1% positivity in multiple samples showed a response which was longer than 12 months. Conclusions: Our findings reveal the heterogeneous SP142 PD-L1 expression in TNBC and suggest that PD-L1 evaluation in baseline biopsy might be insufficient to represent the PD-L1 status of whole tumors. In TNBC, vigorous PD-L1 examination using multiple available tumor samples could identify more patients eligible for immune checkpoint blockade .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.