Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Nodal Micrometastases.

BACKGROUND: Recent data support the use of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in women with one to three positive lymph nodes; however, the benefit of PMRT in patients with micrometastatic nodal disease (N1mi) is unknown. We evaluated the survival impact of PMRT in patients with N1mi within the National Cancer Database. METHODS: The pattern of care and survival benefit of PMRT was examined in women with pT1-2N1mi breast cancer who underwent mastectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were employed for survival analysis, and subanalyses of high-risk patients and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort were completed. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2014, we identified 14,019 patients who fitted the study criteria. PMRT was delivered in 18.5% of patients and its use increased over the study period. Patients treated with PMRT were younger, had better performance status and larger primaries, were estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, had higher grade, lymphovascular invasion and positive surgical margins, and more often received systemic therapy. PMRT was significantly associated with overall survival (OS) in univariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75 [0.64-0.89]), but was not significant in multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 1.01 [0.84-1.20]). There was no survival benefit to PMRT in ER-negative, high-grade, and/or young patients. There were 2 (0.9%) death events in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + PMRT group versus 21 (2.9%) in the SLNB-alone group (log-rank p = 0.053), and 8 (3.9%) death events in the axillary lymph node biopsy (ALNB) + PMRT group versus 27 (3.6%) in the axillary lymph node dissection-alone group (p = 0.82). There was no significant association between PMRT and OS within the PSM subgroup. CONCLUSION: In this largest reported retrospective study, no OS differences were associated with PMRT, which suggests that PMRT may not benefit every patient with microscopic nodal disease.

Estimation of Urinary Frequency: Does Question Phrasing Matter?

PURPOSE: To evaluate if question phrasing and patient numeracy impact estimation of urinary frequency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study looking at reliability of a patient interview in assessing urinary frequency. Prior to completing a voiding diary, patients estimated daytime, and nighttime frequency in 3 ways: (1) how many times they urinated (2) how many hours they waited in between urinations (3) how many times they urinated over the course of 4 hours. Numeracy was assessed using the Lipkus Numeracy Scale. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients completed the study. Correlation of estimates from questions 1, 2, and 3 to the diary were not statistically different. Prediction of nighttime frequency was better than daytime for all questions (correlation coefficients 0.751, 0.754, and 0.670 vs 0.596, 0.575, and 0.460). When compared to the diary, Question 1 underestimated (8.5 vs 9.7, P = .014) while Question 2 overestimated (11.8 vs 9.7, P = .027) recorded voids on a diary. All questions overpredicted nighttime frequency with 2.6, 2.9, and 3.9 predicted versus 1.6 recorded voids (P < .001). Although not statistically significant, for each question, the predicted frequency of numerate patients was more correlated to the diary than those of innumerate patients. CONCLUSION: When compared to a voiding diary for daytime urinary frequency, asking patients how many times they urinated underestimated, and asking patients how many hours they waited between urinations overestimated the number recorded voids. Regardless of phrasing, patients overestimated nighttime urination. Patients in our functional urology population have limited numeracy, which may impact accuracy of urinary frequency estimation.