Deescalating Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: One year of adjuvant trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy is the standard of care in early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. Existing data on shortening trastuzumab treatment show conflicting results.

Methods: A search of PubMed and abstracts from key conferences identified randomized trials that compared abbreviated trastuzumab therapy to 1 year of treatment in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Subgroup analyses evaluated the effect of nodal involvement, estrogen receptor expression, and the duration of abbreviated trastuzumab (9-12 weeks vs 6 months). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were computed for prespecified cardiotoxicity events including cardiac dysfunction and congestive heart failure. P values were two-sided.

Results: Analysis included six trials comprising 11 603 patients. Shorter trastuzumab treatment was associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.25, P = .002) and OS (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.29. P = .02). The effect on DFS was not influenced by estrogen receptor status (P for the subgroup difference = .23), nodal involvement (P = .44), or the different duration of trastuzumab in the experimental arm (P = .09). Shorter trastuzumab treatment was associated with lower odds of cardiac dysfunction (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.81, P < .001) and congestive heart failure (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.86, P = .003).

Conclusions: Compared with 1 year, shorter duration of adjuvant trastuzumab is associated with statistically significantly worse DFS and OS despite favorable cardiotoxicity profile. One year of targeted HER2 treatment should remain the standard adjuvant treatment in early-stage HER2-positive disease with appropriate cardiac monitoring.

Figure 1.

Study selection schema.

Figure 2.

Forest plots for efficacy, hazard ratio for A) disease-free survival (DFS), B) overall survival, C) DFS by nodal involvement (negative or positive), and D) DFS by estrogen receptor status (positive or negative). Hazard ratios for each trial are represented by squares, the size of the square represents the weight of the trial in the meta-analysis, and the horizontal line crossing the square represents the 95% confidence interval (CI). The diamonds represent the estimated pooled effect. All P values are two-sided.

Figure 3.

Forest plots for cardiotoxicity, hazard ratio for A) cardiac dysfunction and B) congestive heart failure. Odds ratios for each trial are represented by the squares, the size of the square represents the weight of the trial in the meta-analysis, and the horizontal line crossing the square represents the 95% confidence interval (CI). The diamonds represent the estimated pooled effect. All P values are two-sided.