Risk of Synchronous Distant Recurrence at Time of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Stage II and III Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

Purpose National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend systemic staging imaging at the time of locoregional breast cancer recurrence. Limited data support this recommendation. We determined the rate of synchronous distant recurrence at the time of locoregional recurrence in high-risk patients and identified clinical factors associated with an increased risk of synchronous metastases. Methods A stage-stratified random sample of 11,046 patients with stage II to III breast cancer in 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for participation in a Commission on Cancer special study. From medical record abstraction of imaging and recurrence data, we identified patients who experienced locoregional recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Synchronous distant metastases (within 30 days of locoregional recurrence) were determined. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with synchronous metastases. Results Four percent experienced locoregional recurrence (n = 445). Synchronous distant metastases were identified in 27% (n = 120). Initial presenting stage ( P = .03), locoregional recurrence type ( P = .01), and insurance status ( P = .03) were associated with synchronous distant metastases. The proportion of synchronous metastases was highest for women with lymph node (35%), postmastectomy chest wall (30%), and in-breast (15%) recurrence; 54% received systemic staging imaging within 30 days of a locoregional recurrence. Conclusion These findings support current recommendations for systemic imaging in the setting of locoregional recurrence, particularly for patients with lymph node or chest wall recurrences. Because most patients with isolated locoregional recurrence will be recommended locoregional treatment, early identification of distant metastases through routine systemic imaging may spare them treatments unlikely to extend their survival.

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance.

PURPOSE: Survival is considered an important indicator of the quality of cancer care, but the validity of different methodologies to measure comparative survival rates is less well understood. We explored whether the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) could serve as a source of unadjusted and risk-adjusted cancer survival data and whether these data could be used as quality indicators for individual hospitals or in the aggregate by hospital type. METHODS: The NCDB, an aggregate of > 1,500 hospital cancer registries, was queried to analyze unadjusted and risk-adjusted hazards of death for patients with stage III breast cancer (n = 116,787) and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 252,392). Data were analyzed at the individual hospital level and by hospital type. RESULTS: At the hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals had comparative risk-adjusted survival rates that were statistically better or worse. By hospital type, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers had risk-adjusted survival ratios that were statistically significantly better than those of academic cancer centers and community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Using the NCDB as the data source, survival rates for patients with stage III breast cancer and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer were statistically better at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers when compared with other hospital types. Compared with academic hospitals, risk-adjusted survival was lower in community hospitals. At the individual hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals were shown to have statistically better or worse survival, suggesting that, using NCDB data, survival may not be a good metric to determine relative quality of cancer care at this level.