M B Hannouf1, M Brackstone, B Xie, G S Zaric. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the benefit of the current clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive (er/pr+), one-to-three positive axillary lymph node (1-3 ln+), breast cancer (esbc). METHODS: Using the Manitoba Cancer Registry, we identified all postmenopausal women diagnosed with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc during the periods 1995-1997, 2000-2002, and 2003-2005 (n = 156, 161, and 171 respectively). Treatment data were obtained from the Manitoba Cancer Registry and by linkage with Manitoba administrative databases. Seven-year survival data were available for the 1995-1997 and 2000-2002 populations. Using Cox regression, we assessed the independent effect of the clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy on disease-free (dfs) and overall survival (os). RESULTS: Clinical breast cancer treatments did not differ significantly between the 2000-2002 and 2003-2005 populations. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 103 patients in the 2000-2002 population (64%) and in 44 patients in the 1995-1997 population [28.2%; mean difference: 36%; 95% confidence interval (ci): 31% to 40%; p < 0.0001]. Compared with 1995-1997, 2000-2002 was not significantly associated with an incremental dfs benefit for patients over a period of 7 years (2000-2002 vs. 1995-1997; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% ci: 0.64 to 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment standard of adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy may not be effective for all women with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc. There could be a subgroup of those women who do not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as expected and who are therefore being overtreated. Further studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm our results.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the benefit of the current clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy for postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive (er/pr+), one-to-three positive axillary lymph node (1-3 ln+), breast cancer (esbc). METHODS: Using the Manitoba Cancer Registry, we identified all postmenopausal women diagnosed with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc during the periods 1995-1997, 2000-2002, and 2003-2005 (n = 156, 161, and 171 respectively). Treatment data were obtained from the Manitoba Cancer Registry and by linkage with Manitoba administrative databases. Seven-year survival data were available for the 1995-1997 and 2000-2002 populations. Using Cox regression, we assessed the independent effect of the clinical practice of adjuvant chemotherapy on disease-free (dfs) and overall survival (os). RESULTS: Clinical breast cancer treatments did not differ significantly between the 2000-2002 and 2003-2005 populations. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 103 patients in the 2000-2002 population (64%) and in 44 patients in the 1995-1997 population [28.2%; mean difference: 36%; 95% confidence interval (ci): 31% to 40%; p < 0.0001]. Compared with 1995-1997, 2000-2002 was not significantly associated with an incremental dfs benefit for patients over a period of 7 years (2000-2002 vs. 1995-1997; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% ci: 0.64 to 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment standard of adjuvant chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy may not be effective for all women with er/pr+ 1-3 ln+ esbc. There could be a subgroup of those women who do not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as expected and who are therefore being overtreated. Further studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm our results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; adjuvant chemotherapy; clinical practice patterns
Authors: Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Antman; D Amato; W Wood; J Carson; H Suit; K Proppe; R Carey; J Greenberger; R Wilson; E Frei Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1985-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Aron Goldhirsch; Daniel F Hayes; Hans-Joerg Senn; William Wood; Giuseppe Viale Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: M B Hannouf; E Winquist; S M Mahmud; M Brackstone; S Sarma; G Rodrigues; P K Rogan; J S Hoch; G S Zaric Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Malek B Hannouf; Eric Winquist; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Muriel Brackstone; Sisira Sarma; George Rodrigues; Peter K Rogan; Jeffrey S Hoch; Gregory S Zaric Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: Malek B Hannouf; Eric Winquist; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Muriel Brackstone; Sisira Sarma; George Rodrigues; Peter K Rogan; Jeffrey S Hoch; Gregory S Zaric Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2018-09