<p>A systematic review undertaken to map the current landscape of locoregional de-escalation trials to inform future research. Online databases and trial registries were searched to identify ongoing, recently completed or published studies de-escalating surgery or radiotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. 97 trials evaluated de-escalation of surgery or radiotherapy in up to 94,866 participants. Surgery studies more commonly evaluated treatment omission/reduction after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) and de-escalation of nodal treatment. Radiotherapy studies were more frequently biomarker stratified. Patients were rarely involved in study design. Research questions focused on response-adjusted treatment after NST and omission/reduction of locoregional therapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease. Significant duplication was identified with multiple studies addressing similar questions. This systematic review demonstrates that the current de-escalation portfolio is inefficient, lacks patient focus and needs improvement. An internationally collaborative approach using innovative study designs and patient partnership will be essential to address this.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Mapping the current landscape of locoregional therapy de-escalation trials in early breast cancer: a systematic review

  • Alan D. McCrorie,
  • Hilary Stobart,
  • David Dodwell,
  • Stuart A. McIntosh,
  • Shelley Potter

摘要

A systematic review undertaken to map the current landscape of locoregional de-escalation trials to inform future research. Online databases and trial registries were searched to identify ongoing, recently completed or published studies de-escalating surgery or radiotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. 97 trials evaluated de-escalation of surgery or radiotherapy in up to 94,866 participants. Surgery studies more commonly evaluated treatment omission/reduction after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) and de-escalation of nodal treatment. Radiotherapy studies were more frequently biomarker stratified. Patients were rarely involved in study design. Research questions focused on response-adjusted treatment after NST and omission/reduction of locoregional therapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease. Significant duplication was identified with multiple studies addressing similar questions. This systematic review demonstrates that the current de-escalation portfolio is inefficient, lacks patient focus and needs improvement. An internationally collaborative approach using innovative study designs and patient partnership will be essential to address this.