Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is a standard approach for operable triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), the potential risks brought by it should also be noticed. Is the expanding indication of NCT to T1cN0M0 population appropriate? We conducted an investigation to compare the long-term survival of small tumor TNBC between NCT and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). METHODS: For this propensity-matched analysis, we used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We enrolled 1183 cases with NCT and 2550 cases with ACT who are AJCC clinical T1c-T2 N0-N1, diagnosed with invasive triple-negative breast cancer, from 2016 to 2017. The propensity score matching was utilized to minimize baseline characteristics bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: Compared with patients receiving ACT, patients with NCT in this study presented a higher proportion of younger age, T2 stage, N1 stage, and underwent more mastectomy. Multivariate analysis in matched patients showed that NCT had no significant survival benefit compared with ACT in T1c-2N0-1M0 TNBC patients. Stratified analyses by T stage and N stage demonstrated NCT mainly presented a survival advantage in patients with N1 stage. Further investigation found that NCT didn't improve BCSS (HR, 0.472; 95% CI 0.135-1.647; P = 0.239) and OS (HR, 0.392; 95% CI 0.147-1.047; P = 0.062) for patients with T1cN0M0 TNBC; however, it was associated with improved OS (HR, 1.951; 95% CI 1.003-3.797; P = 0.049) only for patients with T2N1M0 TNBC. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we did not find any profit brought by NCT in the stage I and stage IIa cohorts, but even more unfavorable outcomes appeared in the T1cN0M0 cohort. Therefore, whether the candidates of NCT should be extended to T1cN0M0 still need to be cautious.