2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Beta-blockers in early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Preclinical and retrospective studies suggest that beta-blockers are active against breast cancer. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of beta-blockers on the outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer.

          Methods

          A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer according to beta-blocker use (yes versus no). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), defined as the occurrence of breast cancer recurrence or death. Secondary objectives were pathologic complete response (pCR), breast cancer recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from each study and a pooled analysis with the random-effect model was conducted. The Higgins' I-squared test was used to quantify heterogeneity. Egger's test was applied to assess publication bias. All P values were two-sided and considered significant if ≤0.05.

          Results

          Overall, 13 studies were included as follows: RFS (6), pCR (2), breast cancer recurrence (6), breast cancer-specific mortality (7) and OS (5). The use of beta-blockers was associated with a significant RFS improvement in the overall population ( N = 21 570; HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P = 0.025) and in patients with triple-negative disease ( N = 1212; HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of pCR ( N = 1554; OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44-1.36; P = 0.371), breast cancer recurrence ( N = 37 957; OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03; P = 0.065), breast cancer-specific mortality ( N = 64 830; HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.08; P = 0.130) or OS ( N = 103 065; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.23; P = 0.692) were observed according to beta-blocker use.

          Discussion

          In this meta-analysis, beta-blocker use was associated with a longer RFS in patients with early-stage breast cancer, with a more pronounced effect observed in those with triple-negative disease. Beta-blockers arise as an interesting option to be explored in prospective studies for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

          Highlights

          • Beta-blockers inhibit proliferation, invasiveness and angiogenesis in preclinical models of breast cancer.

          • Retrospective studies suggest that beta-blocker use may improve the prognosis of patients with breast cancer.

          • In this meta-analysis, beta-blocker use was associated with an RFS improvement in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

          • A more pronounced prognostic effect of beta-blocker use was observed in patients with triple-negative disease.

          • Beta-blockers arise as a low-cost and safe option to be repositioned for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2020

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2016) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2017) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, 1,806,590 new cancer cases and 606,520 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. The cancer death rate rose until 1991, then fell continuously through 2017, resulting in an overall decline of 29% that translates into an estimated 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. This progress is driven by long-term declines in death rates for the 4 leading cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate); however, over the past decade (2008-2017), reductions slowed for female breast and colorectal cancers, and halted for prostate cancer. In contrast, declines accelerated for lung cancer, from 3% annually during 2008 through 2013 to 5% during 2013 through 2017 in men and from 2% to almost 4% in women, spurring the largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. Yet lung cancer still caused more deaths in 2017 than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. Recent mortality declines were also dramatic for melanoma of the skin in the wake of US Food and Drug Administration approval of new therapies for metastatic disease, escalating to 7% annually during 2013 through 2017 from 1% during 2006 through 2010 in men and women aged 50 to 64 years and from 2% to 3% in those aged 20 to 49 years; annual declines of 5% to 6% in individuals aged 65 years and older are particularly striking because rates in this age group were increasing prior to 2013. It is also notable that long-term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men. In summary, slowing momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.

              Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. US Food and Drug Administration. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                Elsevier
                2059-7029
                25 February 2021
                April 2021
                25 February 2021
                : 6
                : 2
                : 100066
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.), Brussels, Belgium
                [2 ]Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
                [3 ]Humanitas Clinical and Research Center – IRCCS, Humanitas Cancer Center, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
                [4 ]Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria, Pisana, Pisa, Italy
                [5 ]AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil
                Author notes
                [] Correspondence to: Dr Rafael Caparica, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.), Boulevard de Waterloo 121, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 02 541 31 11 rcaparica@ 123456hotmail.com rafael.caparica@ 123456bordet.be
                Article
                S2059-7029(21)00022-3 100066
                10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100066
                7921512
                33639601
                97f45328-8cf0-476e-b6ee-c4e05a573b06
                © 2021 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Review

                breast cancer,early stage,beta-blocker,recurrence
                breast cancer, early stage, beta-blocker, recurrence

                Comments

                Comment on this article