| Literature DB >> 20697530 |
Jasgit C Sachdev1, Saira Ahmed, Muhammad M Mirza, Aamer Farooq, Lori Kronish, Mohammad Jahanzeb.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is discordance among studies assessing the impact of race on outcome of patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). We assessed survival outcomes for African American (AA) versus Caucasian (CA) women with TNBC treated at an urban cancer center in Memphis, TN with a predominant AA patient population.Entities:
Keywords: biology; racial differences; survival; triple negative; uniform treatment
Year: 2010 PMID: 20697530 PMCID: PMC2914275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) ISSN: 1178-2234
Patient characteristics.
| <50 | 44 (50) | 11 (31) | 55 (44) | 0.07 |
| ≥50 | 44 (50) | 25 (69) | 69 (56) | |
| Post | 53 (60) | 27 (75) | 80 (65) | 0.15 |
| Pre | 35 (40) | 9 (25) | 44 (35) | |
| Negative | 41 (47) | 23 (64) | 64 (52) | 0.11 |
| Positive | 46 (53) | 13 (36) | 59 (48) | |
| I | 18 (21) | 12 (33) | 30 (24) | 0.21 |
| II | 53 (61) | 16 (45) | 69 (56) | |
| III | 16 (18) | 8 (22) | 24 (20) | |
| I/II | 9 (11) | 4 (12) | 13 (11) | 0.99 |
| III | 73 (89) | 30 (88) | 103 (89) | |
| Mastectomy | 41 (47) | 22 (61) | 63 (51) | 0.17 |
| Lumpectomy | 47 (53) | 14 (39) | 61 (49) | |
| 80 (91) | 34 (94) | 114 (92) | 0.7 | |
| Yes | 8 (9) | 2 (6) | 10 (8) | |
| No | ||||
| 57 (65) | 24 (67) | 79 (66) | 0.99 | |
| Yes | 31 (35) | 12 (33) | 41 (34) | |
| No | ||||
Due to missing data, the numbers for some of the baseline characteristics do not add up to the column totals.
Patient outcomes.
| Yes | 25 (28) | 7 (19) | 32 (26) | 0.37 |
| No | 63 (72) | 29 (81) | 92 (74) | |
| Yes | 12 (14) | 2 (6) | 14 (11) | 0.35 |
| No | 76 (86) | 34 (94) | 110 (89) | |
| LR | 10 (40) | 2 (29) | 12 (38) | 0.68 |
| LRS | 15 (60) | 5 (71) | 20 (63) | |
Fisher’s exact P values.
Survival estimates.
| 64 (7) | 77 (8) | 68 (5) | 0.20 | |
| Node negative | 73 (10) | 79 (10) | 0.97 | |
| Node positive | 53 (9) | 75 (13) | 0.19 | |
| 76 (6) | 92 (6) | 81 (5) | 0.13 | |
| Node negative | 89 (7) | 91 (9) | 0.95 | |
| Node positive | 70 (9) | 92 (8) | 0.15 |
Log rank P values comparing the entire survival curves between groups.
Figure 1a.EFS by race, P = 0.20.
Figure 1b.BCSS by race, P = 0.13.
Figure 2a.Stage adjusted EFS by race. Stage I/II CA vs. AA P = 0.25; Stage II CA vs. AA P = 0.18.
Figure 2b.Stage adjusted BCSS by race. Stage I/II CA vs. AA P = 0.56; Stage II CA vs. AA P = 0.22.
Figure 3b.Age adjusted BCSS by race. Age < 50 years CA vs. AA P = 0.37; ≥50 years CA vs. AA P = 0.01
Figure 3a.Age adjusted EFS by race. Age < 50 years CA vs. AA P = 0.53; ≥50 years CA vs. AA P = 0.09.
Multiple variable cox proportional hazard models.*
| Stage | 8.34 | <0.0001 |
| XRT | 3.09 | 0.0031 |
| Menopausal status | 2.33 | 0.0287 |
| Race | 0.62 | 0.29 |
| Stage | 6.82 | 0.0008 |
| Race | 0.36 | 0.18 |
The final models reflect only the variables retained by the process of step-wise selection, from among the variables which met the significance level for inclusion in univariate modeling.