B Cady1, N R Nathan, J S Michaelson, M Golshan, B L Smith. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Gillette Center for Breast Cancer, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. bcady123@comcast.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports demonstrate improved survival of stage IV breast cancer patients with primary cancer resection. This may result from selection for surgery, rather than biological processes. METHODS: We performed matched-pair analysis that minimized potential bias in selecting surgery for primary cancer. Chart review was also performed of 5-year survivors to assess selection bias affecting breast surgery. RESULTS: 19,464 breast cancer patients were identified; 808 (4.2%) were stage IV: 622 were analyzed after eliminating wrong diagnoses or staging, and limiting patients to Massachusetts residents. Matched-pair analysis narrowed or eliminated apparent survival benefit associated with primary site surgery in several comparisons. When the impact of the sequence of systemic and surgical treatments was studied in stage IV patients, 90% 2-year survival occurred in patients receiving chemotherapy first, in contrast to receiving chemotherapy simultaneously with or after surgery, suggesting selection for delayed surgery after excellent response to initial chemotherapy. In bone metastases, the 2-year survival advantage occurred with chemotherapy before surgery; no difference in survival with or without surgery occurred when these treatments were simultaneous. Among 5-year survivors, frequency of primary site surgery after excellent response to systemic therapy, breast surgery in stage III patients incorrectly classified as stage IV, and frequency of oligo metastases all indicated selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Case selection bias in primary breast cancer resection in state IV patients may explain most, if not all, the apparent survival advantage of such surgery.
BACKGROUND: Reports demonstrate improved survival of stage IV breast cancerpatients with primary cancer resection. This may result from selection for surgery, rather than biological processes. METHODS: We performed matched-pair analysis that minimized potential bias in selecting surgery for primary cancer. Chart review was also performed of 5-year survivors to assess selection bias affecting breast surgery. RESULTS: 19,464 breast cancerpatients were identified; 808 (4.2%) were stage IV: 622 were analyzed after eliminating wrong diagnoses or staging, and limiting patients to Massachusetts residents. Matched-pair analysis narrowed or eliminated apparent survival benefit associated with primary site surgery in several comparisons. When the impact of the sequence of systemic and surgical treatments was studied in stage IV patients, 90% 2-year survival occurred in patients receiving chemotherapy first, in contrast to receiving chemotherapy simultaneously with or after surgery, suggesting selection for delayed surgery after excellent response to initial chemotherapy. In bone metastases, the 2-year survival advantage occurred with chemotherapy before surgery; no difference in survival with or without surgery occurred when these treatments were simultaneous. Among 5-year survivors, frequency of primary site surgery after excellent response to systemic therapy, breast surgery in stage III patients incorrectly classified as stage IV, and frequency of oligo metastases all indicated selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Case selection bias in primary breast cancer resection in state IV patients may explain most, if not all, the apparent survival advantage of such surgery.
Authors: Barbara A Pockaj; Nabil Wasif; Amylou C Dueck; Dennis A Wigle; Judy C Boughey; Amy C Degnim; Richard J Gray; Sarah A McLaughlin; Donald W Northfelt; Robert P Sticca; James W Jakub; Edith A Perez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura Dominici; Julie Najita; Melissa Hughes; Joyce Niland; Paul Marcom; Yu-Ning Wong; Bradford Carter; Sara Javid; Stephen Edge; Harold Burstein; Mehra Golshan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: S Samiee; P Berardi; N Bouganim; L Vandermeer; A Arnaout; S Dent; D Mirsky; M Chasen; J M Caudrelier; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Omar M Rashid; Masayuki Nagahashi; Subramaniam Ramachandran; Laura Graham; Akimitsu Yamada; Sarah Spiegel; Harry D Bear; Kazuaki Takabe Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Ross Mudgway; Carlos Chavez de Paz Villanueva; Ann C Lin; Maheswari Senthil; Carlos A Garberoglio; Sharon S Lum Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.344