BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors with higher numbers of comorbidities at the time of primary treatment suffer higher rates of all-cause mortality than comparatively healthier survivors. The effect of time-varying comorbidity status on mortality in breast cancer survivors, however, has not been well investigated. OBJECTIVE: We examined longitudinal comorbidity in a cohort of women treated for primary breast cancer to determine whether accounting for comorbidities acquired after baseline assessment influenced the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality compared with an analysis using only baseline comorbidity. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and exercise habits were modeled using (1) only a baseline Charlson index; (2) 4 Charlson index values collected longitudinally and entered as time-varying covariates, with missing values addressed by carrying forward the prior observation; and (3) the 4 longitudinal Charlson scores entered as time-varying covariates, with missing values multiply imputed. RESULTS: The 3 modeling strategies yielded similar results; Model 1 HR: 1.4 per unit increase in Charlson index, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-1.7; Model 2 HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5; and Model 3 HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that a unit increase in the Charlson comorbidity index raises the hazard rate for all-cause mortality by approximately 1.4-fold in older women treated for primary breast cancer. The conclusion is essentially the same whether accounting only for baseline comorbidity or accounting for acquired comorbidity over a median follow-up period of 85 months.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer survivors with higher numbers of comorbidities at the time of primary treatment suffer higher rates of all-cause mortality than comparatively healthier survivors. The effect of time-varying comorbidity status on mortality in breast cancer survivors, however, has not been well investigated. OBJECTIVE: We examined longitudinal comorbidity in a cohort of women treated for primary breast cancer to determine whether accounting for comorbidities acquired after baseline assessment influenced the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality compared with an analysis using only baseline comorbidity. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and exercise habits were modeled using (1) only a baseline Charlson index; (2) 4 Charlson index values collected longitudinally and entered as time-varying covariates, with missing values addressed by carrying forward the prior observation; and (3) the 4 longitudinal Charlson scores entered as time-varying covariates, with missing values multiply imputed. RESULTS: The 3 modeling strategies yielded similar results; Model 1 HR: 1.4 per unit increase in Charlson index, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-1.7; Model 2 HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5; and Model 3 HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that a unit increase in the Charlson comorbidity index raises the hazard rate for all-cause mortality by approximately 1.4-fold in older women treated for primary breast cancer. The conclusion is essentially the same whether accounting only for baseline comorbidity or accounting for acquired comorbidity over a median follow-up period of 85 months.
Authors: Rebecca A Silliman; Edward Guadagnoli; William Rakowski; Mary Beth Landrum; Timothy L Lash; Robert Wolf; Aliza Fink; Patricia A Ganz; Jerry Gurwitz; Catherine Borbas; Vincent Mor Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amresh D Hanchate; Kerri M Clough-Gorr; Arlene S Ash; Soe Soe Thwin; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine M Alfano; Juan Peng; Rebecca R Andridge; Monica E Lindgren; Stephen P Povoski; Adele M Lipari; Doreen M Agnese; William B Farrar; Lisa D Yee; William E Carson; Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aditya Bardia; Erin T Arieas; Zhe Zhang; Andrew Defilippis; Karineh Tarpinian; Stacie Jeter; Anne Nguyen; N Lynn Henry; David A Flockhart; Daniel F Hayes; Jill Hayden; Anna Maria Storniolo; Deborah K Armstrong; Nancy E Davidson; John Fetting; Pamela Ouyang; Antonio C Wolff; Roger S Blumenthal; M Dominique Ashen; Vered Stearns Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jennifer H Jordan; Soe Soe Thwin; Timothy L Lash; Diana S M Buist; Terry S Field; Reina Haque; Pamala A Pawloski; Hans V Petersen; Marianne N Prout; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Rebecca A Silliman; Ann M Geiger Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Xiaoli Chen; Wei Lu; Wei Zheng; Kai Gu; Zhi Chen; Ying Zheng; Xiao Ou Shu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gretchen Kimmick; Steven T Fleming; Susan A Sabatino; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Wenke Hwang; J Frank Wilson; Mary Jo Lund; Rosemary Cress; Roger T Anderson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.562