Back

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response and genetic susceptibility in recently parous women with breast cancer

Dennis, S. R.; Tsukioki, T.; Kocherginsky, M.; Qi, A. K.; DeHorn, S.; Gurley, M.; Wrubel, E.; Luo, Y.; Khan, S. A.

2025-02-14 oncology
10.1101/2025.02.13.25322229 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionWomen with recent parity are at increased short-term breast cancer (BC) risk and face a worse prognosis. The effect of parity on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unstudied, and the influence of inherited susceptibility on parity-related short-term risk remains unclear. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective case-cohort study among women aged [&le;]50 with non-metastatic BC diagnosed between 2010 and 2020 who underwent genetic testing and were treated at Northwestern Medicine. Associations between NAC response and recency of parity were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression, stratified by tumor biologic subtypes. Relationships between germline mutations, recency of parity, and BC were explored via multi-state modeling and linear regression. ResultsAmong 1,080 eligible women, 231 received NAC. Treatment response was poorer in parous women with triple negative tumors compared to nullipara, regardless of the recency of parity (P<0.03). Among 122 women (11.3%) with detectable pathogenic mutations, adjusted analyses with both modeling approaches revealed no indications that BRCA1/2 carriers had an increased hazard of BC diagnosis in the decade following recent parity, compared to nulliparous mutation carriers. For BRCA2 and PALB2 carriers, breast cancer diagnosis occurred less frequently in the post-partum intervals. ConclusionWe observed a poor response to NAC in parous TNBC patients compared to nullipara; effects of immunotherapy-based regimens deserve evaluation in the context of parity. Post-partum BC occurrence is not increased in BRCA1/2 carriers; effects of rarer susceptibility genes may differ. These important effects of parity on BC in young women and those at genetic risk warrant larger prospective studies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.0%
2
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
3
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
7
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
8
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
9
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
11
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
12
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.8%
14
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
15
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
16
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
17
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
18
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
20
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
22
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%