BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for pathologic stage T3N0M0 breast cancers. We analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to investigate the benefit of PMRT in this patient population. METHODS: We queried the SEER database for T3N0M0 breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2010 who underwent modified radical mastectomy. We excluded males, patients with unknown radiation timing/type, other primary tumors, and survival <6 months. A total of 2525 patients were included in the analysis. We performed univariate and multivariate statistical analysis using chi-square tests, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: Of the 2525 patients identified, 1063 received PMRT. The median follow-up was 56 months (range, 6-131 months). On univariate analysis, PMRT improved OS (76.5% vs 61.8%, P<.01) and CSS (85.0% vs 82.4%, P<.01) at 8 years. The use of PMRT remained significant on multivariate analysis: PMRT improved OS (hazard ratio 0.63, P<.001) and CSS (hazard ratio 0.77, P = .045). Low tumor grade (P<.01) and marital status of "married" (P = .01) also was a predictor of improved CSS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PMRT was associated with significant improvements in both CSS and OS in patients with T3N0M0 breast cancers treated with modified radical mastectomy from 2000 to 2010. PMRT should be strongly considered in T3N0M0 patients. Postmastectomy radiation therapy is associated with significant improvements in overall and cause-specific survival in patients with T3N0M0 breast cancers treated with modified radical mastectomy from 2000 to 2010 in the SEER database. Postmastectomy radiation therapy should be strongly considered for patients who have T3N0M0 tumors.
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for pathologic stage T3N0M0 breast cancers. We analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to investigate the benefit of PMRT in this patient population. METHODS: We queried the SEER database for T3N0M0 breast cancerpatients diagnosed from 2000 to 2010 who underwent modified radical mastectomy. We excluded males, patients with unknown radiation timing/type, other primary tumors, and survival <6 months. A total of 2525 patients were included in the analysis. We performed univariate and multivariate statistical analysis using chi-square tests, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: Of the 2525 patients identified, 1063 received PMRT. The median follow-up was 56 months (range, 6-131 months). On univariate analysis, PMRT improved OS (76.5% vs 61.8%, P<.01) and CSS (85.0% vs 82.4%, P<.01) at 8 years. The use of PMRT remained significant on multivariate analysis: PMRT improved OS (hazard ratio 0.63, P<.001) and CSS (hazard ratio 0.77, P = .045). Low tumor grade (P<.01) and marital status of "married" (P = .01) also was a predictor of improved CSS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PMRT was associated with significant improvements in both CSS and OS in patients with T3N0M0 breast cancers treated with modified radical mastectomy from 2000 to 2010. PMRT should be strongly considered in T3N0M0 patients. Postmastectomy radiation therapy is associated with significant improvements in overall and cause-specific survival in patients with T3N0M0 breast cancers treated with modified radical mastectomy from 2000 to 2010 in the SEER database. Postmastectomy radiation therapy should be strongly considered for patients who have T3N0M0 tumors.
Authors: A Recht; S B Edge; L J Solin; D S Robinson; A Estabrook; R E Fine; G F Fleming; S Formenti; C Hudis; J J Kirshner; D A Krause; R R Kuske; A S Langer; G W Sledge; T J Whelan; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alphonse G Taghian; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Eleftherios P Mamounas; David S Parda; Melvin Deutsch; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Overgaard; P S Hansen; J Overgaard; C Rose; M Andersson; F Bach; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; H T Mouridsen; M B Jensen; K Zedeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John E Mignano; Irene Gage; Steven Piantadosi; Xiaobu Ye; Gregory Henderson; William C Dooley Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Carey K Anders; David S Hsu; Gloria Broadwater; Chaitanya R Acharya; John A Foekens; Yi Zhang; Yixin Wang; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; Phillip G Febbo; Joseph R Nevins; Anil Potti; Kimberly L Blackwell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: José Luiz B Bevilacqua; Michael W Kattan; Jane V Fey; Hiram S Cody; Patrick I Borgen; Kimberly J Van Zee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Krug; René Baumann; Wilfried Budach; Jürgen Dunst; Petra Feyer; Rainer Fietkau; Wulf Haase; Wolfgang Harms; Thomas Hehr; Marc D Piroth; Felix Sedlmayer; Rainer Souchon; Frederik Wenz; Rolf Sauer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Kyubo Kim; Jinhong Jung; Haeyoung Kim; Wonguen Jung; Kyung Hwan Shin; Ji Hyun Chang; Su Ssan Kim; Won Park; Jee Suk Chang; Yong Bae Kim; Sung Ja Ahn; Ik Jae Lee; Jong Hoon Lee; Hae Jin Park; Jihye Cha; Juree Kim; Jin Hwa Choi; Taeryool Koo; Jeanny Kwon; Jin Hee Kim; Mi Young Kim; Shin-Hyung Park; Yeon-Joo Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.679