Louis Fehrenbacher1, Angela M Capra2, Charles P Quesenberry2, Regan Fulton2, Parveen Shiraz2, Laurel A Habel2. 1. Louis Fehrenbacher, Vallejo Medical Center, Vallejo; Angela M. Capra, Charles P. Quesenberry Jr, Regan Fulton, and Laurel A. Habel, Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, Oakland; and Parveen Shiraz, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA. lou.fehrenbacher@kp.org. 2. Louis Fehrenbacher, Vallejo Medical Center, Vallejo; Angela M. Capra, Charles P. Quesenberry Jr, Regan Fulton, and Laurel A. Habel, Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, Oakland; and Parveen Shiraz, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the invasive recurrence (IR) risk among patients with small, node-negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 16,975 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2006, in a large, integrated health care system, we identified a cohort of 234 patients with HER2-positive T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 (T1abN0M0) disease with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the percentage of patients who were free of invasive recurrence (recurrence-free interval [RFI]) at 5 years for both distant (DRFI) and local (LRFI) recurrences. RESULTS: Of 15 IRs, 47% were locoregional only. Among T1ab patients not treated with adjuvant trastuzumab or chemotherapy (n = 171), the 5-year invasive DRFI was 98.2% (95% CI, 94.5% to 99.4%); it was 99.0% (95% CI, 93.0% to 99.9%) for T1a patients, and 97.0% (95% CI, 88.6% to 99.2%) for T1b patients. Locoregional plus distant 5-year invasive RFI was 97.0% (95% CI, 90.9% to 99.0%) for T1a and 91.9% (95% CI, 81.5% to 96.6%) for T1b patients; it was 89.4% (95% CI, 70.6% to 96.5%) for T1b tumors reported at 1.0 cm. T1b tumors reported at 1.0 cm accounted for 24% of the T1ab cohort, 61% of the cohort total tumor volume, and 75% of distant recurrences. Invasive RFI for T1b 1.0 cm tumors was lower than that for T1a tumors: 84.5% versus 97.4% (P = .009). CONCLUSION: The distant IR risk of T1a HER2-positive breast cancer appears quite low. The distant IR risk in T1b patients, particularly those with 1.0-cm tumors, is higher. Potential risk differences for T1a and T1b, including the 1.0-cm tumors, should be considered when making treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: To determine the invasive recurrence (IR) risk among patients with small, node-negative humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 16,975 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2006, in a large, integrated health care system, we identified a cohort of 234 patients with HER2-positive T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 (T1abN0M0) disease with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the percentage of patients who were free of invasive recurrence (recurrence-free interval [RFI]) at 5 years for both distant (DRFI) and local (LRFI) recurrences. RESULTS: Of 15 IRs, 47% were locoregional only. Among T1ab patients not treated with adjuvant trastuzumab or chemotherapy (n = 171), the 5-year invasive DRFI was 98.2% (95% CI, 94.5% to 99.4%); it was 99.0% (95% CI, 93.0% to 99.9%) for T1a patients, and 97.0% (95% CI, 88.6% to 99.2%) for T1b patients. Locoregional plus distant 5-year invasive RFI was 97.0% (95% CI, 90.9% to 99.0%) for T1a and 91.9% (95% CI, 81.5% to 96.6%) for T1b patients; it was 89.4% (95% CI, 70.6% to 96.5%) for T1b tumors reported at 1.0 cm. T1b tumors reported at 1.0 cm accounted for 24% of the T1ab cohort, 61% of the cohort total tumor volume, and 75% of distant recurrences. Invasive RFI for T1b 1.0 cm tumors was lower than that for T1a tumors: 84.5% versus 97.4% (P = .009). CONCLUSION: The distant IR risk of T1a HER2-positive breast cancer appears quite low. The distant IR risk in T1b patients, particularly those with 1.0-cm tumors, is higher. Potential risk differences for T1a and T1b, including the 1.0-cm tumors, should be considered when making treatment decisions.
Authors: Jennifer Y Sheng; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Neha Mangini; Haval Norman; Rima Couzi; Raquel Nunes; Mary Wilkinson; Kala Visvanathan; Roisin M Connolly; Evanthia T Roussos Torres; John H Fetting; Deborah K Armstrong; Jessica J Tao; Lisa Jacobs; Jean L Wright; Elissa D Thorner; Christine Hodgdon; Samantha Horn; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns; Karen L Smith Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Sara M Tolaney; William T Barry; Chau T Dang; Denise A Yardley; Beverly Moy; P Kelly Marcom; Kathy S Albain; Hope S Rugo; Matthew Ellis; Iuliana Shapira; Antonio C Wolff; Lisa A Carey; Beth A Overmoyer; Ann H Partridge; Hao Guo; Clifford A Hudis; Ian E Krop; Harold J Burstein; Eric P Winer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Se Young Choi; Byung Hoon Chi; Bumjin Lim; Yoon Soo Kyung; Dalsan You; In Gab Jeong; Cheryn Song; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Karen A Cadoo; Patrick G Morris; Elizabeth P Cowell; Sujata Patil; Clifford A Hudis; Heather L McArthur Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Ines Vaz-Luis; Rebecca A Ottesen; Melissa E Hughes; Rizvan Mamet; Harold J Burstein; Stephen B Edge; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Beverly Moy; Hope S Rugo; Richard L Theriault; Jane C Weeks; Eric P Winer; Nancy U Lin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 44.544