Time to Surgery and the Impact of Delay in the Non-Neoadjuvant Setting on Triple-Negative Breast Cancers and Other Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Characterization of breast cancer phenotypes has improved our ability to predict breast cancer behavior. Triple-negative (TN) breast cancers have higher and earlier rates of distant events. It has been suggested that this behavior necessitates treating TNs faster than others, including use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) if time to surgery is not rapid. METHODS: A review of women diagnosed with non-inflammatory, invasive breast cancer was conducted using the National Cancer Database for patients not having NACT, diagnosed between 2010 and 2014. Changes in overall survival due to delay were measured by phenotype. RESULTS: Overall, 351,087 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 36,505 (10.4%) TNs, 77.9% hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and 11.7% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched (HER2+). Phenotype, among other factors, was predictive of treatment delays. Adjusted median days from diagnosis to surgery and chemotherapy were 29.9, 31.6 and 31.5 (p< 0.001), and 72.7, 78.0 and 74.4 (p< 0.001) for TNs, HR+ and HER2+ cancers, respectively. After diagnosis, OS declined for all patients per month of preoperative delay (hazard ratio 1.104; p< 0.001). In models separating or combining surgery and chemotherapy, this survival decline did not vary by breast cancer phenotype (p > 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Delays cause small but measurable effects overall, but the effect on survival does not differ among breast cancer phenotypes. Our data suggest that urgency between diagnosis and surgery or chemotherapy is similar for breast cancers of different subtypes. Although NACT is sometimes advocated solely to avoid treatment delays, this study does not suggest a greater surgical urgency for TNs compared with other breast cancer phenotypes.

Breast conservation versus mastectomy in patients with T3 breast cancers (> 5 cm): an analysis of 37,268 patients from the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: Breast conservation therapy (BCT) is standard for T1-T2 tumors, but early trials excluded breast cancers > 5 cm. This study was performed to assess patterns and outcomes of BCT for T3 tumors. METHODS: We reviewed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for noninflammatory breast cancers > 5 cm, between 2004 and 2011 who underwent BCT or mastectomy (Mtx) with nodal evaluation. Patients with skin or chest wall involvement were excluded. Patients having clinical T3 tumors were analyzed to determine outcomes based upon presentation, with those having pathologic T3 tumors, subsequently assessed, irrespective of presentation. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, with adjusted survival curves estimated using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: After exclusions, 37,268 patients remained. Median age and tumor size for BCT versus Mtx were 53 versus 54 years (p < 0.001) and 6.0 versus 6.7 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. Predictors of BCT included age, race, location, facility type, year of diagnosis, tumor size, grade, histology, nodes examined and positive, and administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. OS was similar between Mtx and BCT (p = 0.36). This held true when neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded (p = 0.39). BCT percentages declined over time (p < 0.001), while tumor sizes remained the same (p = 0.77). Median follow-up was 51.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: OS for patients with T3 breast cancers is similar whether patients received Mtx or BCT, confirming that tumor size should not be an absolute BCT exclusion. Declining use of BCT for tumors > 5 cm in younger patients may be accounted for by recent trends toward mastectomy.

Patterns of Care and Efficacy of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Skin-Involved Breast Cancers of All Sizes.

BACKGROUND: The management of small skin-involved (SI) invasive breast cancers is controversial because although they are considered unresectable, their prognosis is far better than their stage III classification. This study was undertaken to determine how SI lesions are treated in the United States and to discern the benefit of systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of patients diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2011 were reviewed. Treatment patterns were examined and overall survival assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3485 patients had SI and 456,287 patients had non-SI breast cancers. Chemotherapy was administered to 68.5% of SI and 45.9% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 77.2% of SI and 33% of non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P < .001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 19.4% more likely to receive chemotherapy than non-SI patients. Radiotherapy was provided to 61.1% of SI and 64.3% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 65.5% of SI and 66.5% non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P = .711). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 76.6% more likely to receive radiotherapy than non-SI patients. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy provided an overall survival benefit for stage II and III SI and non-SI tumors. CONCLUSION: Despite controversy regarding staging and prognosis of SI tumors, the majority of patients are provided systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Varied patterns of chemotherapy administration for SI tumors suggests that further treatment guidance and standardization are required, especially because chemotherapy and radiotherapy are equally efficacious in SI and non-SI tumors alike.