Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Neoadjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive breast cancer: A phase IIb/III trial to investigate optimal duration of preoperative endocrine therapy

Ute E Krainick-Strobel, Werner Lichtenegger, Diethelm Wallwiener*, Augustinus H Tulusan, Fritz Jänicke, Gunther Bastert, Ludwig Kiesel, Birgit Wackwitz and Stefan Paepke

BMC Cancer 2008, 8:62  doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-62

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Nodal status

John Fralick   (2009-01-15 19:38)  Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University email

Krainick-Strobel et al. provide detail of their single-arm trial of preoperative letrozole in stage T2 – T4b, N0 breast cancer patients. The authors observed that over 50% of the study population became eligible for breast conserving surgery within four months of neoadjuvant letrozole and that letrozole had a favourable safety and tolerability profile. They indicate that no patients showed evidence of metastatic disease at the final assessment.

The authors indicate, however, that ‘no or a very few’ patients did end up having ‘affected’ lymph nodes by the time of their final clinical assessment. It would be helpful to have clear documentation of the number of patients who were found to have positive nodes in table 7. Also, it is not clear from the article what clinical disease response was assigned to these patients who had affected nodes. Were these patients included in the progressive disease group? Were these nodes dissected at surgery, and if so, were they found to be negative for malignant disease? My concern is that if patients with affected nodal disease were not included in the progressive disease group, your estimates of clinical response are likely overestimated.

Competing interests



Post a comment