Search

Objective: To compare long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes in breast cancer survivors who received breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS+RT) with those who received a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (Mast+Recon) without radiotherapy and identify other important factors., Background: The long-term differences in patient-reported QOL outcomes following BCS+RT and Mast+Recon are not well understood., Methods: We identified patients from the Texas Cancer Registry with stage 0-II breast cancer diagnosed in 2009-2014 after BCS+RT or Mast+Recon without radiotherapy. Sampling was stratified by age and race and ethnicity. A paper survey was sent to 4800 patients which included validated BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules. Multivariable linear regression models were implemented for each outcome. Minimal clinically important difference for BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules, respectively, was 4 points and 2 points., Results: Of 1215 respondents (25.3% response rate), 631 received BCS+RT and 584 received Mast+Recon. The median interval from diagnosis to survey completion was 9 years. In adjusted analysis, Mast+Recon was associated with worse BREAST-Q psychosocial well-being (effect size: -3.80, P =0.04) and sexual well-being (effect size: -5.41, P =0.02), but better PROMIS physical function (effect size: 0.54, P =0.03) and similar BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts, physical well-being, and PROMIS upper extremity function ( P >0.05) compared with BCS+RT. Only the difference in sexual well-being reached clinical significance. Older (≥65) patients receiving BCS+RT and younger (<50) patients receiving autologous Mast+Recon typically reported higher QOL scores. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with detriments to multiple QOL domains., Conclusions: Patients who underwent Mast+Recon reported worse long-term sexual well-being compared with BCS+RT. Older patients derived a greater benefit from BCS+RT, while younger patients derived a greater benefit from Mast+Recon. These data inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer., Competing Interests: B.D.S. receives salary support from Varian Medical Systems that is unrelated to the current project. He also has a royalty and equity interest in Oncora Medical. R.J.’s time on this work was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Outside the current work, she has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; she has received personal fees from the Greenwall Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health and grants or contracts for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Greenwall Foundation, and Genentech. She has served as an expert witness for Dressman Benzinger LaVelle and Kleinbard LLC. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To directly compare (1) radiation treatment utilization patterns; (2) risks of subsequent mastectomy; and (3) costs of radiation treatment in patients treated with brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation (WBI), in a national, contemporary cohort of women with incident breast cancer, aged 64 years and younger., Methods and Materials: Using MarketScan health care claims data, we identified 45,884 invasive breast cancer patients (aged 18-64 years), treated from 2003 to 2010 with lumpectomy, followed by brachytherapy (n = 3134) or whole-breast irradiation (n = 42,750). We stratified patients into risk groups according to age (Age < 50 vs Age ≥ 50) and endocrine therapy status (Endocrine- vs Endocrine+). "Endocrine+" patients filled an endocrine therapy prescription within 1 year after lumpectomy. Pathologic hormone receptor status was not available in this dataset. In brachytherapy versus WBI patients, utilization trends and 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks were compared. Stratified, adjusted subsequent mastectomy risks were calculated using proportional hazards regression., Results: Brachytherapy utilization increased from 2003 to 2010: in patients Age < 50, from 0.6% to 4.9%; patients Age ≥ 50 from 2.2% to 11.3%; Endocrine- patients, 1.3% to 9.4%; Endocrine+ patients, 1.9% to 9.7%. Age influenced treatment selection more than endocrine status: 17% of brachytherapy patients were Age < 50 versus 32% of WBI patients (P < .001); whereas 41% of brachytherapy patients were Endocrine-versus 44% of WBI patients (P = .003). Highest absolute 5-year subsequent mastectomy risks occurred in Endocrine-/Age < 50 patients (24.4% after brachytherapy vs 9.0% after WBI (hazard ratio [HR] 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.47); intermediate risks in Endocrine-/Age ≥ 50 patients (8.6% vs 4.9%; HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46); and lowest risks in Endocrine+ patients of any age: Endocrine+/Age < 50 (5.5% vs 4.5%; HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61-2.31); Endocrine+/Age ≥ 50 (4.2% vs 2.4%; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16-2.51)., Conclusion: In this younger cohort, endocrine status was a valuable discriminatory factor predicting subsequent mastectomy risk after brachytherapy versus WBI and therefore may be useful for selecting appropriate younger brachytherapy candidates., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Brachytherapy after lumpectomy is an increasingly popular breast cancer treatment, but data concerning its effectiveness are conflicting. Recently proposed "suitability" criteria guiding patient selection for brachytherapy have never been empirically validated., Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we compared women aged 66 years or older with invasive breast cancer (n=28,718) or ductal carcinoma in situ (n=7229) diagnosed from 2002 to 2007, treated with lumpectomy alone, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The likelihood of breast preservation, measured by subsequent mastectomy risk, was compared by use of multivariate proportional hazards, further stratified by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) brachytherapy suitability groups. We compared 1-year postoperative complications using the χ(2) test and 5-year local toxicities using the log-rank test., Results: For patients with invasive cancer, the 5-year subsequent mastectomy risk was 4.7% after lumpectomy alone (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1%-5.4%), 2.8% after brachytherapy (95% CI, 1.8%-4.3%), and 1.3% after EBRT (95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%) (P<.001). Compared with lumpectomy alone, brachytherapy achieved a more modest reduction in adjusted risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94) than achieved with EBRT (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.28). Relative risks did not differ when stratified by ASTRO suitability group (P=.84 for interaction), although ASTRO "suitable" patients did show a low absolute subsequent mastectomy risk, with a minimal absolute difference in risk after brachytherapy (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.7%-3.5%) versus EBRT (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%). For patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, EBRT maintained a reduced risk of subsequent mastectomy (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55; P<.001), whereas the small number of patients treated with brachytherapy (n=179) precluded definitive comparison with lumpectomy alone. In all patients, brachytherapy showed a higher postoperative infection risk (16.5% vs 9.9% after lumpectomy alone vs 11.4% after EBRT, P<.001); higher incidence of breast pain (22.9% vs 11.2% vs 16.7%, P<.001); and higher incidence of fat necrosis (15.3% vs 5.3% vs 7.7%, P<.001)., Conclusions: In this study era, brachytherapy showed lesser breast preservation benefit compared with EBRT. Suitability criteria predicted differential absolute, but not relative, benefit in patients with invasive cancer., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Brachytherapy is a radiation treatment that uses an implanted radioactive source. In recent years, use of breast brachytherapy after lumpectomy for early breast cancer has increased substantially despite a lack of randomized trial data comparing its effectiveness with standard whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Because results of long-term randomized trials will not be reported for years, detailed analysis of clinical outcomes in a nonrandomized setting is warranted., Objective: To compare the likelihood of breast preservation, complications, and survival for brachytherapy vs WBI among a nationwide cohort of older women with breast cancer with fee-for-service Medicare., Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study of 92,735 women aged 67 years or older with incident invasive breast cancer, diagnosed between 2003 and 2007 and followed up through 2008. After lumpectomy 6952 patients were treated with brachytherapy vs 85,783 with WBI., Main Outcome Measures: Cumulative incidence and adjusted risk of subsequent mastectomy (an indicator of failure to preserve the breast) and death were compared using the log-rank test and proportional hazards models. Odds of postoperative infectious and noninfectious complications within 1 year were compared using the χ(2) test and logistic models. Cumulative incidences of long-term complications were compared using the log-rank test., Results: Five-year incidence of subsequent mastectomy was higher in women treated with brachytherapy (3.95%; 95% CI, 3.19%-4.88%) vs WBI (2.18%; 95% CI, 2.04%-2.33%; P < .001) and persisted after multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19; 95% CI, 1.84-2.61, P < .001). Brachytherapy was associated with more frequent infectious (16.20%; 95% CI, 15.34%-17.08% vs 10.33%; 95% CI, 10.13%-10.53%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 1.64-1.88) and noninfectious (16.25%; 95% CI, 15.39%-17.14% vs 9.00%; 95% CI, 8.81%-9.19%; P < .001; adjusted OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89-2.17) postoperative complications; and higher 5-year incidence of breast pain (14.55%, 95% CI, 13.39%-15.80% vs 11.92%; 95% CI, 11.63%-12.21%), fat necrosis (8.26%; 95% CI, 7.27-9.38 vs 4.05%; 95% CI, 3.87%-4.24%), and rib fracture (4.53%; 95% CI, 3.63%-5.64% vs 3.62%; 95% CI, 3.44%-3.82%; P ≤ .01 for all). Five-year overall survival was 87.66% (95% CI, 85.94%-89.18%) in patients treated with brachytherapy vs 87.04% (95% CI, 86.69%-87.39%) in patients treated with WBI (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; P = .26)., Conclusion: In a cohort of older women with breast cancer, treatment with brachytherapy compared with WBI was associated worse with long-term breast preservation and increased complications but no difference in survival.

Purpose: To determine the relationship between postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and mortality in a population-based cohort of women with T1-2 node-positive breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, we identified 18,038 women with T1-2 node-positive invasive breast cancer who were treated with mastectomy between 1988 and 1995. The relationship between PMRT and mortality was determined using proportional hazards multivariate modeling and propensity score matched case-control analysis., Results: Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Only 2,648 women (15%) received PMRT. After adjusting for covariates, PMRT use was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.03). However, the interaction term for PMRT use and number of involved regional lymph nodes was significant (P = .002), suggesting that, above a certain threshold of involved nodes, a mortality benefit from PMRT may exist. Adjusted analysis stratified by number of involved nodes revealed that patients with seven or more involved nodes treated with PMRT experienced a significant reduction in all-cause (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93) and cause-specific mortality (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.96). Propensity score matched case-control analysis confirmed that PMRT was associated with reduced mortality only in the subset of patients with seven or more involved nodes (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.91 for all-cause mortality; and HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.93 for cause-specific mortality)., Conclusion: For women with T1-2 breast cancer, PMRT is associated with a 15% to 20% relative reduction in mortality for patients with seven or more involved regional lymph nodes.

The article focuses on a study which examined the use of radiation and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as an alternative to mastectomy in patients with TON+breast cancer. The study included women diagnosed with TON+MO ductal, lobular or mixed breast cancer from 1993 to 2006, whose cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Study authors concluded that postmastectomy radiation (Mast) or breast conserving therapy (BCT) improve the outcome of patients with TON+breast cancer.

Purpose: In ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, conservative surgery plus radiotherapy (CS+RT) decreases risk of recurrence compared with CS alone. Although nearly one third of patients are reported as treated with CS alone, it is unclear whether this potentially “undertreated” group represents high- or low-risk patients. We evaluated national patterns of DCIS treatment from 1996 to 2001 by patient risk profile. Methods and Materials: In a retrospective cohort of DCIS patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, patients were risk stratified on the basis of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, tumor size, and comedo histology. Treatment included CS alone, CS+RT, or mastectomy. Patients were followed for the development of ipsilateral invasive or in situ event. Results: Of 14,202 patients, 19% were low-risk, 46% moderate-risk, and 35% high-risk. A total of 28% received CS alone, 40% CS+RT, and 31% mastectomy. Overall, only 17% of high-risk patients but 44% of low-risk patients received CS alone (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, older age, smaller tumor size, and treatment in San Francisco/Los Angeles predicted treatment with CS alone (p < 0.01). Yet despite the tendency to receive CS alone, patients in San Francisco/Los Angeles did not experience an increased risk of ipsilateral event (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–1.12). Conclusion: Patient risk profiles rationally affect treatment choice in DCIS patients, and the vast majority of high-risk patients do not receive CS alone. Additional follow up is needed to determine whether geographic variation in care influences long-term outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Recent clinical trials have questioned the necessity of breast radiation therapy for older women with early breast cancer. However, the effectiveness of radiation therapy for older women in the community setting has not been addressed. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1999, to identify 8724 women aged 70 years or older treated with conservative surgery for small, lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive (or unknown receptor status) breast cancer. We used a proportional hazards model to test whether radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a combined outcome, defined as a second ipsilateral breast cancer reported by SEER and! or a subsequent mastectomy reported by Medicare claims. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Radiation therapy, compared with no radiation therapy, was associated with a lower risk of the combined outcome (hazard ratio = 0.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.14 to 0.28). Radiation therapy was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 4.0 events per 100 women at 5 years (i.e., from 5.1 events without radiation therapy to 1.! with radiation therapy) and 5.7 events per 100 persons at 8 years (i.e., from 8.0 events without radiation therapy to 2.3 with radiation therapy) (P<.001, log-rank test). Radiation therapy was most likely to benefit those aged 70-79 years without comorbidity (number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent one event = 21 to 22 patients) and was least likely to benefit those aged 80 years or older with moderate to severe comorbidity (NNT = 61 to 125 patients). Conclusion: For older women with early breast cancer, radiation therapy was associated with a lower risk of a second ipsilateral breast cancer and subsequent mastectomy. Patients aged 70-79 years with minimal comorbidity were the most likely to benefit, and older patients with substantial comorbidity were least likely to benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Association between treatment with brachytherapy vs whole-breast irradiation and subsequent mastectomy, complications, and survival among older women with invasive breast cancer" by Smith G. L. and colleagues in the 2012 issue along with the authors' response to the same.

Background: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy is as effective as mastectomy for treatment of early invasive breast cancer. But earlier studies report low BCS use rates of 12% to 43% nationally, especially in older patients. We sought to determine current patterns and predictors of BCS use. Study Design: In a national Medicare database of all beneficiaries (age greater than 65 years) with incident invasive breast cancer treated with operation in 2003, claims codes identified BCS versus mastectomy and demographic, treatment, and geographic region covariates. The 2003 Area Resource File provided socioeconomic covariates. Logistic regression modeled predictors of BCS. Results: In 56,725 women, 59% were treated with BCS versus 41% with mastectomy. BCS was more likely in women who were younger than 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.44; p < 0.001) and had lymph node-negative disease (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.68; p < 0.001). Socioeconomic factors influenced use, with BCS more likely in areas with low poverty (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.09; p = 0.03), high education (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.19), high density of radiation oncologists (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59), and in metropolitan areas (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.26). Significant geographic variation existed: 70% of women were treated with BCS in northeastern New England compared with only 48% to 50% in the South (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Currently, more than half of older women across the US diagnosed with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer treated surgically receive BCS, representing a substantial increased use compared with historical data. Lack of BCS use appears in part associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, suggesting that persistent barriers to breast conservation exist. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: For older women with breast cancer, local therapy options may include lumpectomy plus whole-breast irradiation (Lump + WBI), lumpectomy plus brachytherapy (Lump + Brachy), lumpectomy alone (Lump alone), mastectomy without radiation therapy (Mast alone), and mastectomy plus radiation therapy (Mast + RT). We surveyed a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors to assess the association of local therapy with long-term quality-of-life outcomes.Methods and Materials: We used nationally comprehensive Medicare claims to identify women aged ≥67 years in whom nonmetastatic breast cancer was diagnosed in 2009, who were treated with 1 of the 5 aforementioned treatment options, and who were still alive in 2015. From this cohort, 1650 patients (330 patients per treatment) were randomly selected. A survey that included the CanSORT (Cancer Surveillance and Outcomes Research Team) Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcome, BREAST-Q, Decisional Regret Scale, and EQ-5D-3L was mailed to potential participants. We used multivariable linear regression to assess associations between local therapy and outcomes after adjusting for patient, disease, and treatment covariates.Results: Among the 489 women who returned the surveys (30% response rate), the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 67-87 years). The interval from diagnosis to survey completion was approximately 6 years for all patients. Compared with Lump + WBI (adjusted score, 3.40), the CanSORT cosmetic satisfaction scores were higher for Lump + Brachy (score, 3.77; P = .007) and Lump alone (score, 3.80; P = .04) and lower for Mast + RT (score, 3.01; P = .006). Similar trends were seen for BREAST-Q cosmetic satisfaction. BREAST-Q psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being and EQ-5D-3L global health status tended to be better in patients treated with less irradiation and less surgery. BREAST-Q adverse radiation effects were worse for Lump + WBI compared with Lump + Brachy. Decisional regret regarding surgery and radiation therapy did not differ across groups. Compared with patients treated with Lump + WBI, patients treated with Lump + Brachy and Lump alone reported slightly higher rates of in-breast recurrence (excess risk of 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; P = .01).Conclusions: In this nationally diverse cohort, less irradiation and less surgery were associated with better long-term quality-of-life outcomes. However, patient regret regarding surgery and radiation therapy was similar across all groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To examine the frequency of guideline-concordant cancer care in elderly patients, including "older" elderly (age ≥80 years).Methods and Materials: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset in patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer (n=55,094), non-small cell lung (NSCLC) (n=36,203), or prostate cancer (n=86,544) from 2006 to 2011, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation (RT) treatments were identified using claims. Pearson χ2 tested associations between age and guideline concordance.Results: Older patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant curative treatment: in stage III breast cancer, receipt of postmastectomy RT (70%, 46%, and 21% in patients aged 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years, respectively; P<.0001); in stage I NSCLC, RT or surgery (89%, 80%, and 64% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage III NSCLC, RT or surgery plus chemotherapy (79%, 58%, and 27% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); and in intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer, RT or prostatectomy (projected life expectancy >10 years: 85% and 82% in age 66-69 and 70-75 years; and ≤10 years: 70%, 42%, and 9% in age 76-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001). However, older patients were more likely to receive guideline-concordant de-intensified treatment: in stage I to II node-negative breast cancer, hypofractionated postlumpectomy RT (9%, 16%, and 23% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage I estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, observation after lumpectomy (12%, 42%, and 84% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); in stage I NSCLC, stereotactic body RT instead of surgery (7%, 16%, and 25% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001); and in lower-risk prostate cancer, no active treatment (25%, 54%, and 68% in age 66-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years; P<.0001).Conclusion: Actual treatment of older elderly cancer patients frequently diverged from guidelines, especially in curative treatment of advanced disease. Results suggest a need for better metrics than existing guidelines alone to evaluate quality and appropriateness of care in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]