HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2020.3(149): 75-80; doi 10.15574/HW.2020.149.75
Lyalkin S. A., Syvak L. A., Verevkina N. O.
National Cancer Institute, Kyiv

The objective: was to evaluate the efficacy of the first line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Materials and methods. Open randomized study was performed including 122 patients with metastatic TNBC. The efficacy and safety of the first line chemotherapy of regimens АТ (n=59) – group 1, patients received doxorubicine 60 мг/м² and paclitaxel 175 мг/м² and ТР (n=63) – group 2, patients received paclitaxel 175 мг/м² and carboplatin AUC 5 were evaluated.
Results. The median duration of response was 9.5 months (4.5–13.25 months) in patients received AT regimen and 8.5 months (4.7–12.25 months), in TP regimen; no statistically significant differences were observed, р=0.836. The median progression free survival was 7 months (95% CI 5–26 months) in group 1 and 7.5 months (95% CI 6–35 months) in group 2, p=0.85.
Both chemotherapy regimens (AT and TP) had mild or moderate toxicity profiles (grade 1 or 2 in most patients). No significant difference in gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was higher in patients of group 2 (TP regimen): 42.8% versus 27% (р<0.05).
Conclusions. Both regimens of chemotherapy (AT and TP) are appropriate to use in the first line setting in patients with metastatic TNBC.
Key words: metastatic triple negative breast cancer, chemotherapy, progression free survival, chemotherapy toxicity.
REFERENCES

1. Fedorenko ZP, Hulak LO, Mykhailovych YuI ta in. 2019. Rak v Ukraini, 2017–2018. Zakhvoriuvanist, smertnist, pokaznyky diialnosti onkolohichnoi sluzhby. Biuleten Natsionalnoho kantser-reiestru Ukrainy 20: 44–45.

2. Bianchini G, Balko JM, Mayer IA, Sanders ME and Gianni L. 2016. Triple negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat.Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13:674-690. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.66; PMid:27184417 PMCid:PMC5461122

3. Claire H, Karandza V, Aktan G. 2019. Current treatment landscape for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer: a systematic literature review. Breast cancer research 21:143-157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1210-4; PMid:31842957 PMCid:PMC6916124

4. Dana A, Franzese E, Centonze S et al. 2018. Triple-negative breast cancers: systematic review of the literature on molecular and clinical features with a focus on treatment with innovative drugs. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 20(10):76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-018-0726-6; PMid:30128845

5. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. 2010. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 363:1938-1948. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1001389; PMid:21067385

6. Leidy J, Khan A, Kandil D. 2014. Basal-like breast cancer: update on clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 138(1):37-43. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0439-RA; PMid:24377810

7. Omarini C, Guaitoli G, Pipitone S et al. 2018. Neoadjuvant treatments in triple-negative breast cancer patients: where we are now and where we are going. Cancer Manag Res. 10:91-103. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S146658; PMid:29391830 PMCid:PMC5772398

8. Pandy JP, Balolong-Garcia JC, Cruz-Ordinario VB, Que VF. 2019. Triple negative breast cancer and platinum-based systemic treatment: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Cancer. 19(1):1065. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6253-5; PMid:31703646 PMCid:PMC6839096