Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Breast Cancer Prognostic Staging System in Legacy Alliance Trials (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system combined anatomic stage (AS) with receptor status and grade to create prognostic stage (PS). PS has been validated in single-institution and cancer registry studies; however, missing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and variable treatment and follow-up create limitations. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the relative prognostic ability of PS versus AS to predict survival using breast cancer clinical trial data. METHODS: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer enrolled in six Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials were included (enrollment years 1997-2010). AS and PS were constructed using pathological tumor size, nodal status, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 status, and grade. Unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to predict overall survival within 5 years, with AS and PS as predictor variables. The relative predictive power of staging models was assessed by comparing Harrell concordance indices (C-indices). Kaplan-Meier-based mortality estimates were compared by stage. RESULTS: Overall, 6924 women were included (median age 53 years); 45.2% were diagnosed with ER+/PR+/HER2- tumors, 26.2% with HER2+ tumors, and 17.1% with ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. Median follow-up time was 5 years (interquartile range 2.95-5.00). PS significantly improved predictive performance (C-index 0.721) for overall survival compared with AS (0.700) (p = 0.020). Kaplan-Meier hazard estimates suggested PS did not distinguish mortality risk between patients with IIB and IIIA or IB and IIA disease. CONCLUSIONS: PS has significantly improved predictive performance for OS compared with AS. As systemic therapies evolve, it will be important to re-evaluate the prognostic staging system, particularly for patients with intermediate-stage cancers. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Breast Cancer-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The revision of the eighth edition of the primary tumor, lymph node, and metastasis (TNM) classification of the American Joint Commission of Cancer (AJCC) for breast cancer was determined by a multidisciplinary team of breast cancer experts. The panel recognized the need to incorporate biologic factors, such as tumor grade, proliferation rate, estrogen and progesterone receptor expression, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression, and gene expression prognostic panels into the staging system. AJCC levels of evidence and guidelines for all tumor types were followed as much as possible. The panel felt that, to maintain worldwide value, the tumor staging system should remain based on TNM anatomic factors. However, the recognition of the prognostic influence of grade, hormone receptor expression, and HER2 amplification mandated their inclusion into the staging system. The value of commercially available, gene-based assays was acknowledged and prognostic input added. Tumor biomarkers and low Oncotype DX recurrence scores can alter prognosis and stage. These updates are expected to provide additional precision and flexibility to the staging system and were based on the extent of published information and analysis of large, as yet unpublished databases. The eighth edition of the AJCC TNM staging system, thus, provides a flexible platform for prognostic classification based on traditional anatomic factors, which can be modified and enhanced using patient biomarkers and multifactorial prognostic panel data. The eighth edition remains the worldwide basis for breast cancer staging and will incorporate future online updates to remain timely and relevant. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:290-303. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The influence of anatomic stage and receptor status on first recurrence for breast cancer within 5 years (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified follow-up guidelines that account for the absolute risk and timing of recurrence may improve the quality and efficiency of breast cancer follow-up. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship of anatomic stage and receptor status with timing of the first recurrence for patients with local-regional breast cancer and generate risk-stratified follow-up recommendations. METHODS: The authors conducted a secondary analysis of 8007 patients with stage I-III breast cancer who enrolled in nine Alliance legacy clinical trials from 1997 to 2013 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02171078). Patients who received standard-of-care therapy were included. Patients who were missing stage or receptor status were excluded. The primary outcome was days from the earliest treatment start date to the date of first recurrence. The primary explanatory variable was anatomic stage. The analysis was stratified by receptor type. Cox proportional-hazards regression models produced cumulative probabilities of recurrence. A dynamic programming algorithm approach was used to optimize the timing of follow-up intervals based on the timing of recurrence events. RESULTS: The time to first recurrence varied significantly between receptor types (p < .0001). Within each receptor type, stage influenced the time to recurrence (p < .0001). The risk of recurrence was highest and occurred earliest for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative/progesterone receptor (PR)-negative/Her2neu-negative tumors (stage III; 5-year probability of recurrence, 45.5%). The risk of recurrence was lower for ER-positive/PR-positive/Her2neu-positive tumors (stage III; 5-year probability of recurrence, 15.3%), with recurrences distributed over time. Model-generated follow-up recommendations by stage and receptor type were created. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports considering both anatomic stage and receptor status in follow-up recommendations. The implementation of risk-stratified guidelines based on these data has the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of follow-up.

Local/Regional Recurrence Rates After Breast-Conserving Therapy in Patients Enrolled in Legacy Trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (AFT-01).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate local/regional recurrence rates after breast-conserving surgery in a cohort of patients enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and to evaluate variation in recurrence rates by receptor subtype. BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equivalent survival between breast conservation and mastectomy, albeit with higher local/regional recurrence rates after breast conservation. However, absolute rates of local/regional recurrence have been declining with multi-modality treatment. METHODS: Data from 5 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology legacy trials that enrolled women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2010 were included. Women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and standard systemic therapies (n=4,404) were included. Five-year rates of local/regional recurrence were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were censored at the time of distant recurrence (if recorded as the first recurrence), death, or last follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with time to local/regional recurrence, including patient age, tumor size, lymph node status, and receptor subtype. RESULTS: Overall 5-year recurrence was 4.6% (95% CI=4.0-5.4%). Five-year recurrence rates were lowest in those with ER+ or PR+ tumors (Her2+ 3.4% [95% CI 2.0-5.7%], Her2- 4.0% [95% CI 3.2-4.9%]) and highest in the triple-negative subtype (7.1% [95% CI 5.4-9.3%]). On multivariable analysis, increasing nodal involvement and triple-negative subtype were positively associated with recurrence ( P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of local/regional recurrence after breast conservation in women with breast cancer enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology are significantly lower than historic estimates. This data can better inform patient discussions and surgical decision-making.

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: a multicentre pooled analysis of 5161 patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have independently validated the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used results from several independent cohorts in a pooled patient-level analysis to evaluate the relationship of RCB with long-term prognosis across different phenotypic subtypes of breast cancer, to assess generalisability in a broad range of practice settings. METHODS: In this pooled analysis, 12 institutes and trials in Europe and the USA were identified by personal communications with site investigators. We obtained participant-level RCB results, and data on clinical and pathological stage, tumour subtype and grade, and treatment and follow-up in November, 2019, from patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We assessed the association between the continuous RCB score and the primary study outcome, event-free survival, using mixed-effects Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneity, and stratification to account for differences in baseline hazard across cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status and HER2 status. The association was further evaluated within each breast cancer subtype in multivariable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment clinical T category, nodal status, and tumour grade. Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival at 3, 5, and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within each subtype. FINDINGS: We analysed participant-level data from 5161 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Sept 12, 1994, and Feb 11, 2019. Median age was 49 years (IQR 20-80). 1164 event-free survival events occurred during follow-up (median follow-up 56 months [IQR 0-186]). RCB score was prognostic within each breast cancer subtype, with higher RCB score significantly associated with worse event-free survival. The univariable hazard ratio (HR) associated with one unit increase in RCB ranged from 1·55 (95% CI 1·41-1·71) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients to 2·16 (1·79-2·61) for the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (with or without HER2-targeted therapy; p<0·0001 for all subtypes). RCB score remained prognostic for event-free survival in multivariable models adjusted for age, grade, T category, and nodal status at baseline: the adjusted HR ranged from 1·52 (1·36-1·69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2·09 (1·73-2·53) in the hormone receptor-negative, HER2-positive group (p<0·0001 for all subtypes). INTERPRETATION: RCB score and class were independently prognostic in all subtypes of breast cancer, and generalisable to multiple practice settings. Although variability in hormone receptor subtype definitions and treatment across patients are likely to affect prognostic performance, the association we observed between RCB and a patient's residual risk suggests that prospective evaluation of RCB could be considered to become part of standard pathology reporting after neoadjuvant therapy. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute at the US National Institutes of Health.

Low RUFY3 expression level is associated with lymph node metastasis in older women with invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is omitted in older women (≥ 70 years old) with clinical lymph node (LN)-negative hormone receptor-positive breast cancer as it does not influence adjuvant treatment decision-making. However, older women are heterogeneous in frailty while the chance of recurrence increase with improving longevity. Therefore, a biomarker that identifies LN metastasis may facilitate treatment decision-making. RUFY3 is associated with cancer progression. We evaluated RUFY3 expression level as a biomarker for LN-positive breast cancer in older women. METHODS: Clinical and transcriptomic data of breast cancer patients were obtained from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC, n = 1903) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n = 1046) Pan-cancer study cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 510 (METABRIC) and 211 (TCGA) older women were identified. LN-positive breast cancer, which represented 51.4% (METABRIC) and 48.4% (TCGA), demonstrated worse disease-free, disease-specific, and overall survival. RUFY3 levels were significantly lower in LN-positive tumors regardless of age. The area under the curve for the receiver operator characteristic (AUC-ROC) curves showed RUFY3-predicted LN metastasis. Low RUFY3 enriched oxidative phosphorylation, DNA repair, MYC targets, unfolded protein response, and mtorc1 signaling gene sets, was associated with T helper type 1 cell infiltration, and with intratumor heterogeneity and fraction altered. Low RUFY3 expression was associated with LN-positive breast cancer and with worse disease-specific survival among older women. CONCLUSION: Older women with breast cancers who had low expression level of RUFY3 were more frequently diagnosed with LN-positive tumors, which translated into worse prognosis.

The Impact of Radiotherapy Delay in Breast Conservation Patients Not Receiving Chemotherapy and the Rationale for Dichotomizing the Radiation Oncology Time-Dependent Standard into Two Quality Measures.

INTRODUCTION: The Commission on Cancer/National Quality Forum breast radiotherapy quality measure establishes that for women < 70 years, adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (BCS) should be started < 1 year from diagnosis. This was intended to prevent accidental radiotherapy omission or delay due to a long interval between surgery and chemotherapy completion, when radiation is delivered. However, the impact on patients not receiving chemotherapy, who proceed from surgery directly to radiotherapy, remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18-69, diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer as their first and only cancer diagnosis (2004-2016), having BCS, for whom this measure would be applicable, were reviewed from the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Among 308,521 patients, the median age was 57.0 years, and > 99% of all patients were compliant with the measure. The cohort of interest included 186,650 (60.5%) patients not receiving chemotherapy, with a mean age of 57.9 years. Of these, 90.5% received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 9.5% brachytherapy. Among them, 24.9% started radiotherapy > 8 weeks after surgery. In a multivariable model, delay from surgery to radiotherapy increased the hazard ratios for overall survival to 9.0% (EBRT) per month and 3.0% (brachytherapy) per week. CONCLUSION: While 99.9% of patients undergoing BCS without chemotherapy remain compliant with the current quality measure, 25% have delays > 8 weeks to start radiation, which is associated with impaired survival. These data suggest that the current quality measure should be dichotomized into two, with or without chemotherapy, in order to impel prompt radiotherapy initiation and maximize outcomes in all patients.

Behind the clock: elucidating factors contributing to longer clinic appointment duration and patient wait time.

BACKGROUND: Longer wait time in ambulatory clinics can disrupt schedules and decrease satisfaction. We investigated factors associated with patient wait time (WT, check-in to examination room placement), approximate clinician time (ACT, completion of nurse assessment to check-out), and total appointment length (TAL, check-in to check-out). METHODS: A single-institution retrospective study was conducted of breast surgery clinic patients, 2017-2019, using actual encounter times. A before/after analysis compared a five-day 8 hour/day (from a four-day 10 hour/day) advanced practice provider (APP) work-week. Non-parametric tests were used, and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) reported. RESULTS: 15,265 encounters were identified. Overall WT was 15.0 minutes (IQR:6.0-32.0), ACT 49.0 minutes (IQR:31.0-79.0) and TAL 84.0 minutes (IQR:57.0-124.0). Trainees were associated with 30.0 minutes longer ACT (p < 0.0001); this increased time was greatest for follow-up appointments, least for new patients. Patients arriving > 5 minutes late (versus on-time) experienced shorter WT (11.0 vs. 15.0 minutes, p < 0.0001) and ACT (43.0 vs. 53.0 minutes, p < 0.0001). Busier days (higher encounter volume:APP ratios) demonstrated increased encounter times. After transitioning to a five-day APP work-week, ACT decreased. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume clinics and trainee involvement prolong ambulatory encounters. Increasing APP assistance, altering work schedules, and assigning follow-up appointments to non-trainees may decrease encounter time.

Quality Measurement in Cancer Care: A Review and Endorsement of High-Impact Measures and Concepts.

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.

Advancing survivorship care through the National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center: developing American Cancer Society guidelines for primary care providers.

The National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center (The Survivorship Center) began in 2010 as a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the George Washington University Cancer Institute and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Survivorship Center aims to improve the overall health and quality of life of posttreatment cancer survivors. One key to addressing the needs of this ever-growing population is to develop clinical follow-up care guidelines that emphasize not only the importance of surveillance for cancer recurrence, but also address the assessment and management of the physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects that may result from having cancer and undergoing cancer treatment as well as highlight the importance of healthy behaviors that can reduce the risk of cancer recurrence, second primary cancers, and other chronic diseases. Currently, The Survivorship Center is coordinating the work of experts in oncology, primary care, and other health care professions to develop follow-up care guidelines for 10 priority cancer sites.

Novel MicroRNA-Based Risk Score Identified by Integrated Analyses to Predict Metastasis and Poor Prognosis in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of biomarkers that allow early therapeutic intervention or intensive follow-up evaluation is expected to be a powerful means for reducing breast cancer mortality. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are known to play major roles in cancer biology including metastasis. This study aimed to develop a novel miRNA risk score to predict patient survival and metastasis in breast cancer. METHODS: An integrated unbiased approach was applied to derive a composite risk score for prognosis based on miRNA expression in primary breast tumors in 1051 breast cancer patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Further analysis of the risk score with metastasis/recurrence was performed using the TCGA data set and validated in a separate patient population using small RNA sequencing. RESULTS: The three-miRNAs risk score (miR-19a, miR-93, and miR-106a) was developed using the TCGA cohort, which predicted poor prognosis (p = 0.0005) independently of known clinical risk factors. The prognostic value was validated in another three following independent cohorts: GSE19536 (p = 0.0009), GSE22220 (p = 0.0003), and the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) (p = 0.0023). The three-miRNAs risk score predicted bone recurrence in TCGA (p = 0.0052), and the findings were validated in another independent population of patients who experienced bone recurrence and age/stage-matched patients without any recurrence. The three-miRNAs risk score enriched multiple metastasis-related gene sets such as angiogenesis and epithelial mesenchymal transition in a gene-set-enrichment analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors developed the novel miRNA-based risk score, which is a promising biomarker for prediction of worse survival and bone recurrence potential in breast cancer.

A National Study of the Use of Asymptomatic Systemic Imaging for Surveillance Following Breast Cancer Treatment (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Although not guideline recommended, studies suggest 50% of locoregional breast cancer patients undergo systemic imaging during follow-up, prompting its inclusion as a Choosing Wisely measure of potential overuse. Most studies rely on administrative data that cannot delineate scan intent (prompted by signs/symptoms vs. asymptomatic surveillance). This is a critical gap as intent is the only way to distinguish overuse from appropriate care. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess surveillance systemic imaging post-breast cancer treatment in a national sample accounting for scan intent. METHODS: A stage-stratified random sample of 10 women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 was selected from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities, for a total of 10,838 patients. Registrars abstracted scan type (computed tomography [CT], non-breast magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, positron emission tomography/CT) and intent (cancer-related vs. not, asymptomatic surveillance vs. not) from medical records for 5 years post-diagnosis. Data were merged with each patient's corresponding National Cancer Database record, containing sociodemographic and tumor/treatment information. RESULTS: Of 10,838 women, 30% had one or more, and 12% had two or more, systemic surveillance scans during a 4-year follow-up period. Patients were more likely to receive surveillance imaging in the first follow-up year (lower proportions during subsequent years) and if they had estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional breast cancer patients undergo asymptomatic systemic imaging during follow-up despite guidelines recommending against it, but at lower rates than previously reported. Providers appear to use factors that confer increased recurrence risk to tailor decisions about systemic surveillance imaging, perhaps reflecting limitations of data on which current guidelines are based. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). METHODS: A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Comparative effectiveness of stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastases from breast or non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for patients with brain metastases remains controversial as the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone, replacing whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), has increased. This study determined the patterns of care at multiple institutions before 2010 and examined whether or not survival was different between patients treated with SRS and patients treated with WBRT. METHODS: This study examined the overall survival of patients treated with radiation therapy for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; initially diagnosed in 2007-2009) or breast cancer (initially diagnosed in 1997-2009) at 5 centers. Propensity score analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors such as the number of metastases, the extent of extracranial metastases, and the treatment center. RESULTS: Overall, 27.8% of 400 NSCLC patients and 13.4% of 387 breast cancer patients underwent SRS alone for the treatment of brain metastases. Few patients with more than 3 brain metastases or lesions ≥ 4 cm in size underwent SRS. Patients with fewer than 4 brain metastases less than 4 cm in size (n = 189 for NSCLC and n = 117 for breast cancer) who were treated with SRS had longer survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for NSCLC, 0.58; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.38-0.87; P = .01; adjusted HR for breast cancer, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91; P = .02) than those treated with WBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated for fewer than 4 brain metastases from NSCLC or breast cancer with SRS alone had longer survival than those treated with WBRT in this multi-institutional, retrospective study, even after adjustments for the propensity to undergo SRS. Cancer 2016;122:2091-100. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Trends in the use of mastectomy in women with small node-negative breast cancer treated at US academic centers.

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides equivalent survival outcomes to unilateral mastectomy. There is no survival advantage to bilateral mastectomy in average risk breast cancer. Among a cohort of breast cancer patients expected to be candidates for BCS, we examined choice of surgery and factors associated with it. A prospective cohort study of unilateral clinical Stage I breast cancer patients treated at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers from 2000 to 2009 was performed. The proportion of patients who initially underwent mastectomy versus BCS and time to definitive surgery and chemotherapy were examined. Of 10,249 patients, 23 % underwent mastectomy as an initial surgery. No decline in the use of mastectomy as initial surgery was found. There was significant institutional variation, with rates of initial mastectomy ranging from 14 to 30 % (adjusted odds ratio: 0.42-1.38). Tumor characteristics were associated with surgical option, but with small absolute differences. Of those who received initial mastectomy, 22 % had bilateral mastectomy, with an increase over time (2000:13 % vs. 2009:30 %) and substantial institutional variation (11-34 %). Women treated with initial mastectomy had longer median times from diagnosis to complete definitive surgery (6 vs. 4 weeks) and to start of adjuvant chemotherapy (12 vs. 11 weeks). Among Stage I breast cancer, the overall use of mastectomy did not change significantly over 10 years; however, an increasing proportion of women with unilateral cancer had bilateral mastectomy, and there was wide variation in type of surgery by institution. Further studies to assess reasons for the observed wide variation are warranted.

Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local-Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method. RESULTS: Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. DISCUSSION: Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.

Variation in type of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer: A multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stage I breast cancer, there is significant uncertainty concerning the optimal threshold at which to consider chemotherapy, and when considered, there is controversy regarding whether to consider non-intensive versus intensive regimens. The authors examined the types and costs of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer. METHODS: The current study was a prospective cohort study including patients with stage I breast cancer who were treated at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network center from 2000 through 2009. Stage was defined according to the version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual applicable at the time of diagnosis. Stratifying by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the authors examined the percentage of patients receiving intensive versus non-intensive chemotherapy regimens and the factors associated with type of chemotherapy administered using multivariable logistic regression. Costs of the most common regimens were estimated. RESULTS: Of 8907 patients, 33% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among those individuals, there was an increase in the use of intensive chemotherapy within the last decade, from 31% in 2000 through 2005 to 63% in 2008 through 2009 (including an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab) among patients with HER2-positive disease and from 15% in 2000 through 2005 to 41% in 2008 through 2009 among patients with HER2-negative disease (32% of patients with hormone receptor-positive and 59% of patients with triple-negative disease). Among patients treated with non-intensive regimens, there was an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide noted, with a decrease in the use of the doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide combination. The choice of regimen varied significantly by institution. The major drivers of cost variation were the incorporation of biologics (eg, trastuzumab) and growth factors, with significant variation even within non-intensive and intensive regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, there was an increase in use of intensive regimens among Stage I breast cancer, with striking institutional and cost variations.