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 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.8%
2
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.4%
3
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
13.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
5
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
Annals of Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
8
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
9
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.2%
11
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
13
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
17
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.9%
18
Journal of Medical Genetics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
20
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
21
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%