Search

Purpose In 2010, a randomized clinical trial demonstrated noninferior survival for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) compared with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). We examined the use and effectiveness of NACT in clinical practice. Patients and Methods A multi-institutional observational study of 1,538 women with stages IIIC to IV ovarian cancer who were treated at six National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. We examined NACT use in patients who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 (N = 1,538) and compared overall survival (OS), morbidity, and postoperative residual disease in a propensity-score matched sample of patients (N = 594). Results NACT use increased from 16% during 2003 to 2010 to 34% during 2011 to 2012 in stage IIIC disease ( P trend < .001), and from 41% to 62% in stage IV disease ( P trend < .001). Adoption of NACT varied by institution, from 8% to 30% for stage IIIC disease (P < .001) and from 27% to 61% ( P = .007) for stage IV disease during this time period. In the matched sample, NACT was associated with shorter OS in stage IIIC disease (median OS: 33 v 43 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.77) compared with PCS, but not stage IV disease (median OS: 31 v 36 months; HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52). Patients with stages IIIC and IV disease who received NACT were less likely to have ≥ 1 cm postoperative residual disease, an intensive care unit admission, or a rehospitalization (all P ≤ .04) compared with those who received PCS treatment. However, among women with stage IIIC disease who achieved microscopic or ≤ 1 cm postoperative residual disease, NACT was associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.18; P = .04). Conclusion Use of NACT increased significantly between 2003 and 2012. In this observational study, PCS was associated with increased survival in stage IIIC, but not stage IV disease. Future studies should prospectively consider the efficacy of NACT by extent of residual disease in unselected patients.

Purpose: Young women are at increased risk for developing more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer. Although previous studies have shown a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence and death among young women with early-stage breast cancer, they have not adequately addressed the role of tumor subtype in outcomes., Methods: We examined data from women with newly diagnosed stage I to III breast cancer presenting to one of eight National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers between January 2000 and December 2007. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between age and breast cancer-specific survival., Results: A total of 17,575 women with stage I to III breast cancer were eligible for analysis, among whom 1,916 were ≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis. Median follow-up time was 6.4 years. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model controlling for sociodemographic, disease, and treatment characteristics, women ≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis had greater breast cancer mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.7). In stratified analyses, age ≤ 40 years was associated with statistically significant increases in risk of breast cancer death among women with luminal A (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.2) and luminal B (HR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.9) tumors, with borderline significance among women with triple-negative tumors (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8) but not among those with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 subtypes (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.9). In an additional model controlling for detection method, young age was associated with significantly increased risk of breast cancer death only among women with luminal A tumors., Conclusion: The effect of age on survival of women with early breast cancer seems to vary by breast cancer subtype. Young age seems to be particularly prognostic in women with luminal breast cancers., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: A 2006 randomized trial demonstrated a 16-month survival benefit with intraperitoneal and intravenous (IP/IV) chemotherapy administered to patients who had ovarian cancer, compared with IV chemotherapy alone, but more treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to examine the use and effectiveness of IP/IV chemotherapy in clinical practice., Patients and Methods: Prospective cohort study of 823 women with stage III, optimally cytoreduced ovarian cancer diagnosed at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. We examined IP/IV chemotherapy use in all patients diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 (N = 823), and overall survival and treatment-related toxicities with Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively, in a propensity score-matched sample (n = 402) of patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2012, excluding trial participants, to minimize selection bias., Results: Use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased from 0% to 33% between 2003 and 2006, increased to 50% from 2007 to 2008, and plateaued thereafter. Between 2006 and 2012, adoption of IP/IV chemotherapy varied by institution from 4% to 67% (P < .001) and 43% of patients received modified IP/IV regimens at treatment initiation. In the propensity score-matched sample, IP/IV chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival (3-year overall survival, 81% v 71%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.99), compared with IV chemotherapy, but also more frequent alterations in chemotherapy delivery route (adjusted rates discontinuation or change, 20.4% v 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.47 to 5.47)., Conclusion: Although the use of IP/IV chemotherapy increased significantly at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers between 2003 and 2012, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received it. Increasing IP/IV chemotherapy use in clinical practice may be an important and underused strategy to improve ovarian cancer outcomes., Competing Interests: Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found in the article online at www.jco.org. Author contributions are found at the end of this article., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between race/ethnicity and breast cancer-specific survival according to subtype and explore mediating factors., Patients and Methods: Participants were women presenting with stage I to III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2007 at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers with survival follow-up through December 2009. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare breast cancer-specific survival among Asians (n = 533), Hispanics (n = 1,122), and blacks (n = 1,345) with that among whites (n = 14,268), overall and stratified by subtype (luminal A like, luminal B like, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 type, and triple negative). Model estimates were used to derive mediation proportion and 95% CI for selected risk factors., Results: In multivariable adjusted models, overall, blacks had 21% higher risk of breast cancer-specific death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45). For estrogen receptor-positive tumors, black and white survival differences were greatest within 2 years of diagnosis (years 0 to 2: HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.34 to 5.24; year 2 to end of follow-up: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.00). Blacks were 76% and 56% more likely to die as a result of luminal A-like and luminal B-like tumors, respectively. No disparities were observed for triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-type tumors. Asians and Hispanics were less likely to die as a result of breast cancer compared with whites (Asians: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; Hispanics: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). For blacks, tumor characteristics and stage at diagnosis were significant disparity mediators. Body mass index was an important mediator for blacks and Asians., Conclusion: Racial disparities in breast cancer survival vary by tumor subtype. Interventions are needed to reduce disparities, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis among black women with estrogen receptor-positive tumors., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)