Literature DB >> 1391993

Proportional hazards and recursive partitioning and amalgamation analyses of the Southwest Oncology Group node-positive adjuvant CMFVP breast cancer data base: a pilot study.

K S Albain1, S Green, M LeBlanc, S Rivkin, J O'Sullivan, C K Osborne.   

Abstract

Several putative prognostic factors have been identified in node-positive breast cancer patients, but their importance needs to be clarified in a uniformly treated population. The objectives of this investigation were: 1) to describe the characteristics of a uniformly treated node-positive data base; 2) to use proportional hazards (Cox) and recursive partitioning and amalgamation (RPA) multivariate models to assess the importance of potential prognostic factors for disease-free and for overall survival; and 3) to define prognostic groups with different disease-free survival and survival outcomes with RPA. A data base of 768 node-positive patients enrolled on 1-year adjuvant CMFVP arms of four SWOG trials was formed. Variables were number of positive nodes, age, age at menopause, menopausal status, ER status, ER and PgR levels (for RPA only), tumor size, race, breast cancer in mother, and obesity index. Independent predictors of both disease-free and overall survival in the Cox models were: number of positive nodes (4-6 worse than 1-3, and better than greater than 6); the age/menopause category (age greater than or equal to 35/premenopausal better than age less than 35/premenopausal and better than postmenopausal); and ER status (patients on ER-negative study worse than others). The RPA for disease-free survival defined four subgroups based on nodes, menopausal status, tumor size, and age at menopause (5-year recurrence-free rates = 73%, 52%, 38%, and 15%). The RPA for survival found four prognostic groups, defined only by the number of positive nodes and ER and PgR levels (5-year survivals = 91%, 72%, 56%, and 37%). Both RPAs suggested interesting refinements of the results of the Cox models. In the RPA for disease-free survival, best node cutoffs differed by menopausal status, tumor size was important only in postmenopausal patients with few positive nodes, and age at menopause emerged as an independent predictor of recurrence potential. And, the RPA for survival showed that node cutoffs differed according to ER level. Thus, these analyses underscore the value of simple, clinically available prognostic factors and suggest the possible need to reconsider the definition of good and poor risk patient groups in future adjuvant trial design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1391993     DOI: 10.1007/bf01840840

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  20 in total

Review 1.  Clinical evidence for a change in tumor aggressiveness with age.

Authors:  F F Holmes
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 4.929

2.  Weight change in women treated with adjuvant therapy or observed following mastectomy for node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  J K Camoriano; C L Loprinzi; J N Ingle; T M Therneau; J E Krook; M H Veeder
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for node-positive and node-negative breast carcinoma.

Authors:  K S Albain
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 2.190

4.  Adjuvant chemohormonal therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and prednisone (CMFP) or CMFP plus tamoxifen compared with CMF for premenopausal breast cancer patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

Authors:  D C Tormey; R Gray; K Gilchrist; T Grage; P P Carbone; J Wolter; J E Woll; F J Cummings
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Adjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer.

Authors:  I C Henderson
Journal:  Curr Probl Cancer       Date:  1987 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.187

6.  Determinants of improved outcome in small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of the 2,580-patient Southwest Oncology Group data base.

Authors:  K S Albain; J J Crowley; M LeBlanc; R B Livingston
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  The relation between survival and age at diagnosis in breast cancer.

Authors:  H O Adami; B Malker; L Holmberg; I Persson; B Stone
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A randomized trial of five and three drug chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy in women with operable node positive breast cancer.

Authors:  D C Tormey; V E Weinberg; J F Holland; R B Weiss; O J Glidewell; M Perloff; G Falkson; H C Falkson; P H Henry; L A Leone
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Prognostic and therapeutic significance of pathological features of breast cancer.

Authors:  E R Fisher
Journal:  NCI Monogr       Date:  1986

Review 10.  Breast cancer and aging.

Authors:  J A Stewart; R S Foster
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 4.929

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Prognostic factors: rationale and methods of analysis and integration.

Authors:  G M Clark; S G Hilsenbeck; P M Ravdin; M De Laurentiis; C K Osborne
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Role of age as a prognostic factor in breast cancer.

Authors:  A Tsuchiya; R Abe; M Kanno; T Ohtake; T Fukushima; T Nomizu; I Kimijima
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Body mass index and survival in women with breast cancer-systematic literature review and meta-analysis of 82 follow-up studies.

Authors:  D S M Chan; A R Vieira; D Aune; E V Bandera; D C Greenwood; A McTiernan; D Navarro Rosenblatt; I Thune; R Vieira; T Norat
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2014-04-27       Impact factor: 32.976

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.