EFICACY OF NEOADJUVANT 4AC- 4TH REGIMEN IN STAGE III BREAST CANCER PATIENTS AT HANOI ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL

Minh Phúc Ngô , Thị Thu Hường Nguyễn , Kiên Vũ

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: Our study aims to describe the clinical and paraclinical characteristics of stage III breast cancer patients and evaluate the treatment outcomes and toxicity of neoadjuvant 4AC- 4TH regimen in this group. Patients and Methods: Retrospective, descriptive sudy on 51 patients with stage III breast cancer, were treated with neoadjuvant 4AC – 4TH regimen at Ha Noi Onconlogy Hospital. Results: The mean age was 51,7. The proportion of stage IIIA, IIIB, IIIC is 39,2%, 35,3% and 25,5%, respectively . 92,2% patients histoloy was invasive carrcinoma of no special type (NST) and 70,6% was in grade II. After treatment, the complete clinical response was 15,7% after 8 cycles of 4AC- 4TH. All of our patients was moved to modified radical mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotheraphy. The pathological complete response (pCR) was 43,1%. Most adverse events were manageable and tolerable. The most common toxicity was amenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, mainly at grade 1-2. The proportion of neutropenia at levels 3 and 4 over the total number of chemical cycles is 4.9% and 0.2%, respectively. Non hematological toxicities such as vomiting, fatigue, stomatitis and alopecia were also common and all of them were mild and moderate. Conclusion: 4AC- 4TH regimen in neoadjuvant setting gives a high pCR rate with tolerable toxicity, therefore this regimen can be widely used as neoadjuvant chemotheraphy prior to surgery with Her-2 positive breast cancer in our country, specilly with inoperable stage at initial diagnosis.

Article Details

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
2. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 228-247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca. 2008.10.026
3. Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7): 1037-1044. doi: 10.1200/JCO. 2005.02.6914
4. Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A. Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE - Version 5.0) to Evaluate the Severity of Adverse Events of Anticancer Therapies. Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2021; 112(1): 90-92. doi:10.1016/j.ad.2019.05.009
5. Nguyễn Thị Thủy. Đánh Giá Kết Quả Hóa Trị Bổ Trợ Trước Phác Đồ 4AC-4T Trên Bệnh Nhân Ung Thư vú Giai Đoạn III. Luận văn Thạc sỹ y học, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội; 2016.
6. Vriens BEPJ, Vriens IJH, Aarts MJB, et al. Improved survival for sequentially as opposed to concurrently delivered neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(3): 593-600. doi:10.1007/ s10549-017-4364-8
7. Hà Thành Kiên. Đánh Giá Kết Quả Hóa Trị Bổ Trợ Trước Phẫu Thuật Phác Đồ 4AC-4T Liều Dày Trên Bệnh Nhân Ung Thư vú Tại Bệnh Viện K. Luận văn Thạc sỹ y học, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội; 2018.
8. Đoàn NH, Trịnh LH. kết quả điều trị hóa chất bổ trợ trước phẫu thuật phác đồ 4ac-4t liều dày bệnh ung thư vú tại bệnh viện đại học y hà nội. VMJ. 2022;519(1). doi:10.51298/vmj.v519i1.3538