PURPOSE: We questioned the impact of pregnancy on disease-free survival (DFS) in women with history of breast cancer (BC) according to estrogen receptor (ER) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study in which patients who became pregnant any time after BC were matched (1:3) to patients with BC with similar ER, nodal status, adjuvant therapy, age, and year of diagnosis. To adjust for guaranteed time bias, each nonpregnant patient had to have a disease-free interval at least equal to the time elapsing between BC diagnosis and date of conception of the matched pregnant one. The primary objective was DFS in patients with ER-positive BC. DFS in the ER-negative cohort, whole population, and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. Subgroup analyses included DFS according to pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval. With a two-sided α = 5% and β = 20%, 645 ER-positive patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65. RESULTS: A total of 333 pregnant patients and 874 matched nonpregnant patients were analyzed, of whom 686 patients had an ER-positive disease. No difference in DFS was observed between pregnant and nonpregnant patients in the ER-positive (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.24, P = .55) or the ER-negative (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08, P = .12) cohorts. However, the pregnant group had better OS (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97, P = .03), with no interaction according to ER status (P = .11). Pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval did not seem to impact the risk of relapse. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy after ER-positive BC does not seem to reduce the risk of BC recurrence.
PURPOSE: We questioned the impact of pregnancy on disease-free survival (DFS) in women with history of breast cancer (BC) according to estrogen receptor (ER) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study in which patients who became pregnant any time after BC were matched (1:3) to patients with BC with similar ER, nodal status, adjuvant therapy, age, and year of diagnosis. To adjust for guaranteed time bias, each nonpregnant patient had to have a disease-free interval at least equal to the time elapsing between BC diagnosis and date of conception of the matched pregnant one. The primary objective was DFS in patients with ER-positive BC. DFS in the ER-negative cohort, whole population, and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. Subgroup analyses included DFS according to pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval. With a two-sided α = 5% and β = 20%, 645 ER-positive patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65. RESULTS: A total of 333 pregnant patients and 874 matched nonpregnant patients were analyzed, of whom 686 patients had an ER-positive disease. No difference in DFS was observed between pregnant and nonpregnant patients in the ER-positive (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.24, P = .55) or the ER-negative (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08, P = .12) cohorts. However, the pregnant group had better OS (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97, P = .03), with no interaction according to ER status (P = .11). Pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval did not seem to impact the risk of relapse. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy after ER-positive BC does not seem to reduce the risk of BC recurrence.
Authors: Julie A Kranick; Catherine Schaefer; Sarah Rowell; Manisha Desai; Jeanne A Petrek; Robert A Hiatt; Ruby T Senie Journal: Breast J Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Ann Partridge; Larissa Korde; Sunil Badve; John Bartlett; Kathy Albain; Richard Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Stephanie R Land; Charles E Geyer; Reena S Cecchini; Joseph P Costantino; Eduardo R Pajon; Louis Fehrenbacher; James N Atkins; Jonathan A Polikoff; Victor G Vogel; John K Erban; Robert B Livingston; Edith A Perez; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark; Sandra M Swain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Sally A Dominick; Brian W Whitcomb; Jessica R Gorman; Jennifer E Mersereau; Karine Chung; H Irene Su Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Katrina F Trivers; Aliza K Fink; Ann H Partridge; Kutluk Oktay; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Chunyu Li; Lori A Pollack Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-06-20
Authors: Kathryn J Ruddy; Shari I Gelber; Rulla M Tamimi; Elizabeth S Ginsburg; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Virginia F Borges; Meghan E Meyer; Ann H Partridge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn J Ruddy; Daniel J Schaid; Ann H Partridge; Nicholas B Larson; Anthony Batzler; Lothar Häberle; Ralf Dittrich; Peter Widschwendter; Visnja Fink; Emanuel Bauer; Judith Schwitulla; Matthias Rübner; Arif B Ekici; Viktoria Aivazova-Fuchs; Elizabeth A Stewart; Matthias W Beckmann; Elizabeth Ginsburg; Liewei Wang; Richard M Weinshilboum; Fergus J Couch; Wolfgang Janni; Brigitte Rack; Celine Vachon; Peter A Fasching Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Stacey A Missmer; Logan G Spector; Richard E Leach; Melanie Williams; Lori Koch; Yolanda R Smith; Judy E Stern; G David Ball; Maria J Schymura Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 6.918