Outcomes of complex oncoplastic breast surgery in older women. Analysis of data from the Age Gap cohort study.

KEY WORDS: Breast cancer, mastectomy, breast conserving surgery, post-mastectomy reconstruction, older women, quality of life.

Is there evidence of age bias in breast cancer health care professionals' treatment of older patients?

OBJECTIVES: Despite NICE (2009; 2018) guidelines to treat breast cancer patients 'irrespective of age', older women experience differential treatment and worse outcomes beyond that which can be explained by patient health or patient choice. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and perhaps perpetuating disparities across society, including in healthcare. Yet age bias has rarely been considered as an explanatory factor in poorer outcomes for older breast cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed methods study explored age bias amongst breast cancer HCPs through four components: 1) An implicit associations test (31 HCPs) 2) A treatment recommendations questionnaire (46 HCPs). 3) An attitudes about older patients questionnaire (31 HCPs). 4) A treatment recommendations interview (20 HCPs). RESULTS: This study showed that breast cancer HCPs held negative implicit associations towards older women; HCPs were less likely to recommend surgery for older patients; some HCPs held assumptions that older patients are more afraid, less willing and able to be involved in decision-making, and are less willing and able to cope with being informed of a poor treatment prognosis; and conditions which disproportionately affect older patients, such as dementia, are not always well understood by breast cancer HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that there are elements of age bias present amongst breast cancer HCPs. The study's findings of age-based assumptions and a poorer understanding of conditions which disproportionately affect older patients align with patterns of differential treatment towards older breast cancer patients suggesting that age bias may be, at least in part, driving differential treatment.

Observational cohort study to determine the degree and causes of variation in the rate of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in older women with operable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the UK there is variation in the treatment of older women with breast cancer, with up to 40% receiving primary endocrine therapy (PET), which is associated with inferior survival. Case mix and patient choice may explain some variation in practice but clinician preference may also be important. METHODS: A multicentre prospective cohort study of women aged >70 with operable breast cancer. Patient characteristics (health status, age, tumour characteristics, treatment allocation and decision-making preference) were analysed to identify whether treatment variation persisted following case-mix adjustment. Expected case-mix adjusted surgery rates were derived by logistic regression using the variables age, co-morbidity, tumour stage and grade. Concordance between patients' preferred and actual decision-making style was assessed and associations between age, treatment and decision-making style calculated. RESULTS: Women (median age 77, range 70-102) were recruited from 56 UK breast units between 2013 and 2018. Of 2854/3369 eligible women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer, 2354 were treated with surgery and 500 with PET. Unadjusted surgery rates varied between hospitals, with 23/56 units falling outside the 95% confidence intervals on funnel plots. Adjusting for case mix reduced, but did not eliminate, this variation between hospitals (10/56 units had practice outside the 95% confidence intervals). Patients treated with PET had more patient-centred decisions compared to surgical patients (42.2% vs 28.4%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates variation in treatment selection thresholds for older women with breast cancer. Health stratified guidelines on thresholds for PET would help reduce variation, although patient preference should still be respected.

A BCL2 promoter polymorphism rs2279115 is not associated with BCL2 protein expression or patient survival in breast cancer patients.

The B-cell CLL/lymphoma 2 (BCL2) gene family encodes pro- and anti-apoptotic proteins that are critical regulators of programmed cell death. Higher levels of BCL2 expression in breast tumours have been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for improved survival from breast cancer. The promoter single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2279115 has been associated with both BCL2 expression and patient survival. The aim of this study was to attempt to replicate these observations in a cohort of 1015 UK women with breast cancer, and to compare genotype frequencies in cases and controls. In this study, 1015 breast cancer cases and 1034 control subjects were genotyped for the rs2279115 SNP by 5' nuclease PCR. Paraffin embedded tumour tissue for 342 case subjects was assembled into tissue microarrays, and the level of expression of BCL2 was established by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan Meier survival curves and Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to examine the effect of genotype on patient survival. The effect of SNP genotype on tumour BCL2 protein levels and breast cancer susceptibility was assessed by logistic regression. In this study higher BCL2 expression was significantly associated with improved survival from breast cancer (p = 0.015), in keeping with previous reports. The SNP rs2279115 was not found to be associated with tumour expression of BCL2, (p = 0.77), and neither was it associated with case/control status (p = 0.25). There was no significant association between the SNP and overall survival (p = 0.75). In conclusion, we found that higher tumour BCL2 expression is associated with improved survival from breast cancer, in keeping with previous studies. However, in contrast to a previous report, the promoter SNP rs2279115 was not associated with BCL2 expression or overall survival from breast cancer.

Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: a combined case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Several common breast cancer genetic susceptibility variants have recently been identified. We aimed to determine how these variants combine with a subset of other known risk factors to influence breast cancer risk in white women of European ancestry using case-control studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. METHODS: We evaluated two-way interactions between each of age at menarche, ever having had a live birth, number of live births, age at first birth and body mass index (BMI) and each of 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (10q26-rs2981582 (FGFR2), 8q24-rs13281615, 11p15-rs3817198 (LSP1), 5q11-rs889312 (MAP3K1), 16q12-rs3803662 (TOX3), 2q35-rs13387042, 5p12-rs10941679 (MRPS30), 17q23-rs6504950 (COX11), 3p24-rs4973768 (SLC4A7), CASP8-rs17468277, TGFB1-rs1982073 and ESR1-rs3020314). Interactions were tested for by fitting logistic regression models including per-allele and linear trend main effects for SNPs and risk factors, respectively, and single-parameter interaction terms for linear departure from independent multiplicative effects. RESULTS: These analyses were applied to data for up to 26,349 invasive breast cancer cases and up to 32,208 controls from 21 case-control studies. No statistical evidence of interaction was observed beyond that expected by chance. Analyses were repeated using data from 11 population-based studies, and results were very similar. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risks for breast cancer associated with the common susceptibility variants identified to date do not appear to vary across women with different reproductive histories or body mass index (BMI). The assumption of multiplicative combined effects for these established genetic and other risk factors in risk prediction models appears justified.

Current status and future prospects for anti-angiogenic therapies in cancer.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is essential for tumour growth and development and since the pioneering work of Judah Folkman several anti-angiogenic strategies have now been successfully employed. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to present a detailed review of current knowledge of the main pathways involved in angiogenesis, the strategies employed for inhibition and the current status of angiogenesis inhibitors in therapeutic use. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken including angiogenesis in cancer and angiogenesis inhibitors in pre-clinical and clinical trials. CONCLUSION: While angiogenic inhibitors are now in clinical use, their limited benefits mean we must urgently develop strategies to improve the efficacy of this approach.