Increased mortality from breast cancer and inadequate axillary treatment.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of axillary nodal status remains divisive: inaccurate staging may result in untreated axillary disease, and appropriate adjuvant therapy not being delivered. The impact of inadequate axillary treatment on survival remains controversial. We analyse the impact of failure to adequately assess the axillary nodal status on survival. METHODS: All women with confirmed breast cancer in a 15-year period were identified, and the original pathology reports examined, and details of radiotherapy obtained. The survival of women by axillary sample size was compared to a reference group of women and corrected for nodal status, tumour size, age, deprivation category and speciality of treating surgeon. FINDINGS: Sampling less than four nodes is associated with a significantly increased risk of death. This cannot be due to understaging the extent of axillary disease nor is fully explainable by differential prescription of adjuvant therapies. We conclude that the survival of the women studied may have been adversely effected by inadequate axillary treatment.

Specialisation and breast cancer survival in the screening era.

It is recommended that specialist surgeons treat all breast cancer, although the limited evidence to support this is based on treatment patterns prior to the introduction of screening. Whether a specialist survival advantage exists in the post-screening era is uncertain, as referral and treatment patterns may have changed, in addition to the effect of screening on the natural history of breast cancer. Our aim was to determine the impact of screening on the caseload and case-mix of specialist surgeons, to determine if the survival advantage associated with specialist care is maintained with longer follow-up and persists after the introduction of screening. Using the West of Scotland Cancer Registry, all 7197 women treated for breast cancer in a 15-year time period (1980-1994) in a geographically defined cohort were followed up for an average of 9 years, and pathological stage and socioeconomic status were linked with mortality data. We show that the caseload of specialists has increased substantially (from 11 to 59% of the total workload) and that smaller cancers have been selectively referred. However, even after allowing for pathological stage, socioeconomic status and method of detection, specialist treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of dying (prescreening: relative risk of dying=0.83, 95% CI=0.75-0.92; post-screening: relative risk of dying=0.89, 95% CI=0.78-1.00). We conclude that this survival benefit is most consistent with effective surgical management rather than selective referral, the influx of screen-detected cancers or adjuvant therapies.

Relation between socioeconomic deprivation and pathological prognostic factors in women with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relation between socioeconomic deprivation and pathological prognostic factors in women with breast cancer as a possible explanation for socioeconomic differences in survival. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from cancer registry and from pathology and biochemistry records. SETTING: Catchment areas of two large teaching hospitals in Glasgow. SUBJECTS: 1361 women aged under 75 who had breast cancer diagnosed between 1980 and 1987. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Tumour size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade, and oestrogen receptor concentration in relation to deprivation category of area of residence. RESULTS: There was no significant relation between socioeconomic deprivation and four pathological prognostic factors: 93 (32%) women in the most affluent group presented with tumours less than 20 mm in size compared with 91 (31%) women in the most deprived group; 152 (48%) of the most affluent group presented with negative nodes compared with 129 (46%) of the most deprived group; 23 (22%) of the most affluent group presented with grade I tumours compared with 12 (17%) of the most deprived group; and 142 (51%) of the most affluent group had a low oestrogen receptor concentration at presentation compared with 148 (52%) of the most deprived group. None of these differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in survival from breast cancer by socioeconomic deprivation category could not be accounted for by differences in tumour stage or biology. Other possible explanations, such as differences in treatment or in host response, should be investigated.