BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) have demonstrated equivalent survival for breast-conserving therapy with radiation (BCT) and mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. A large, population-based series of women who underwent BCT or mastectomy was studied to observe whether outcomes of RCT were achieved in the general population, and whether survival differed by surgery type when stratified by age and hormone receptor (HR) status. METHODS: Information was obtained regarding all women diagnosed in the state of California with stage I or II breast cancer between 1990 and 2004, who were treated with either BCT or mastectomy and followed for vital status through December 2009. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) between BCT and mastectomy groups. Analyses were stratified by age group (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years) and tumor HR status. RESULTS: A total of 112,154 women fulfilled eligibility criteria. Women undergoing BCT had improved OS and DSS compared with women with mastectomy (adjusted hazard ratio for OS entire cohort = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-0.83). The DSS benefit with BCT compared with mastectomy was greater among women age ≥ 50 with HR-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82-0.91) than among women age < 50 with HR-negative disease (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.98); however, this trend was seen among all subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with early stage breast cancer, BCT was associated with improved DSS. These data provide confidence that BCT remains an effective alternative to mastectomy for early stage disease regardless of age or HR status.
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) have demonstrated equivalent survival for breast-conserving therapy with radiation (BCT) and mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. A large, population-based series of women who underwent BCT or mastectomy was studied to observe whether outcomes of RCT were achieved in the general population, and whether survival differed by surgery type when stratified by age and hormone receptor (HR) status. METHODS: Information was obtained regarding all women diagnosed in the state of California with stage I or II breast cancer between 1990 and 2004, who were treated with either BCT or mastectomy and followed for vital status through December 2009. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) between BCT and mastectomy groups. Analyses were stratified by age group (< 50 years and ≥ 50 years) and tumorHR status. RESULTS: A total of 112,154 women fulfilled eligibility criteria. Women undergoing BCT had improved OS and DSS compared with women with mastectomy (adjusted hazard ratio for OS entire cohort = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-0.83). The DSS benefit with BCT compared with mastectomy was greater among women age ≥ 50 with HR-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82-0.91) than among women age < 50 with HR-negative disease (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.79-0.98); however, this trend was seen among all subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with early stage breast cancer, BCT was associated with improved DSS. These data provide confidence that BCT remains an effective alternative to mastectomy for early stage disease regardless of age or HR status.
Authors: Kaoru Itakura; Juan Lessing; Theadora Sakata; Amy Heinzerling; Eline Vriens; Dorota Wisner; Michael Alvarado; Laura Esserman; Cheryl Ewing; Nola Hylton; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Francis P Boscoe; Christopher J Johnson; Kevin A Henry; Daniel W Goldberg; Kaveh Shahabi; Elena B Elkin; Leslie K Ballas; Myles Cockburn Journal: Breast Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Maurice J C van der Sangen; Fenneke M M van de Wiel; Philip M P Poortmans; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Rudi M H Roumen; Miranda F Ernst; M Cathelijne B J E Tutein Nolthenius-Puylaert; Adri C Voogd Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: K S Albain; S R Green; A S Lichter; L F Hutchins; W C Wood; I C Henderson; J N Ingle; J O'Sullivan; C K Osborne; S Martino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Beth A Virnig; Joan L Warren; Gregory S Cooper; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roger T Anderson; Cyllene R Morris; Gretchen Kimmick; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Fabian Camacho; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Susan A Sabatino; Steven T Fleming; Joseph Lipscomb Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jianfeng Wang; Yang Xu; Kelly J Mesa; Fredrick A South; Eric J Chaney; Darold R Spillman; Ronit Barkalifa; Marina Marjanovic; P Scott Carney; Anna M Higham; Z George Liu; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Rachel A Greenup; Christel Rushing; Laura Fish; Brittany M Campbell; Lisa Tolnitch; Terry Hyslop; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Evan R Myers; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Rachel A Greenup; Rachel C Blitzblau; Kevin L Houck; Julie Ann Sosa; Janet Horton; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Alphonse G Taghian; Barbara L Smith; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.840