PURPOSE: To determine whether the patterns of relapse according to estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status changed in the contemporary era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Female patients referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency with biopsy-proven stage I to III breast cancer (BC), diagnosed between 1986 and 1992 (cohort 1 [C1]) and between mid-2004 and 2008 (cohort 2 [C2]), and with known ER and HER2 status were eligible. Data were prospectively collected. C2 patients were matched to C1 patients for stage, grade, and ER and HER2 status. The primary end point was hazard rate of relapse (HRR) for BC by study cohort according to biomarker status. Secondary outcomes included HRR according to stage, grade, and age and hazard rate of death (HRD). RESULTS: After matching, 7,178 patients were included (3,589 patients in each cohort). BC subtype distribution was as following ER positive/HER2 negative, 70.8%; ER positive/HER2 positive, 6.9%; ER negative/HER2 positive, 6.6%; and ER negative/HER2 negative, 15.8%. For the overall population, the HRR approximately halved in all yearly intervals to year 9 in C2 compared with C1. Differences in HRR between cohorts were greater in the initial five intervals for HER2-positive and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC. The HRR decreased in C2 compared with C1 for all disease stages and grades. The HRD in C2 also decreased compared with C1, although to a lesser extent. CONCLUSION: Although the pattern of relapse remains similar, there has been a significant improvement in BC relapse-free survival. Outcomes have improved for all BC subtypes, especially HER2-positive and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC, with the early spike in disease recurrence markedly decreased. These contemporary hazard rates are important for treatment decisions, patient discussions, and planning clinical trials of early BC.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the patterns of relapse according to estrogen receptor (ER) and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status changed in the contemporary era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Female patients referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency with biopsy-proven stage I to III breast cancer (BC), diagnosed between 1986 and 1992 (cohort 1 [C1]) and between mid-2004 and 2008 (cohort 2 [C2]), and with known ER and HER2 status were eligible. Data were prospectively collected. C2 patients were matched to C1 patients for stage, grade, and ER and HER2 status. The primary end point was hazard rate of relapse (HRR) for BC by study cohort according to biomarker status. Secondary outcomes included HRR according to stage, grade, and age and hazard rate of death (HRD). RESULTS: After matching, 7,178 patients were included (3,589 patients in each cohort). BC subtype distribution was as following ER positive/HER2 negative, 70.8%; ER positive/HER2 positive, 6.9%; ER negative/HER2 positive, 6.6%; and ER negative/HER2 negative, 15.8%. For the overall population, the HRR approximately halved in all yearly intervals to year 9 in C2 compared with C1. Differences in HRR between cohorts were greater in the initial five intervals for HER2-positive and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC. The HRR decreased in C2 compared with C1 for all disease stages and grades. The HRD in C2 also decreased compared with C1, although to a lesser extent. CONCLUSION: Although the pattern of relapse remains similar, there has been a significant improvement in BC relapse-free survival. Outcomes have improved for all BC subtypes, especially HER2-positive and ER-negative/HER2-negative BC, with the early spike in disease recurrence markedly decreased. These contemporary hazard rates are important for treatment decisions, patient discussions, and planning clinical trials of early BC.
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Taiwo Adesoye; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth S Burnside; David J Vanness; Menggang Yu; Yajuan Si; Dan McKellar; David P Winchester; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alexandra Thomas; Anthony Rhoads; Jonathan Suhl; Kristin M Conway; William G Hundley; Lacey R McNally; Jacob Oleson; Susan A Melin; Charles F Lynch; Paul A Romitti Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Marco Colleoni; Zhuoxin Sun; Karen N Price; Per Karlsson; John F Forbes; Beat Thürlimann; Lorenzo Gianni; Monica Castiglione; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc D Ryser; Mathias Worni; Elizabeth L Turner; Jeffrey R Marks; Rick Durrett; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Isabelle Gingras; Eileen Holmes; Evandro De Azambuja; David H A Nguyen; Miguel Izquierdo; Jo Anne Zujewski; Moshe Inbar; Bjorn Naume; Gianluca Tomasello; Julie R Gralow; Antonio C Wolff; Lyndsay Harris; Michael Gnant; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Martine J Piccart; Hatem A Azim Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jessica R Schumacher; Heather B Neuman; George J Chang; Benjamin D Kozower; Stephen B Edge; Menggang Yu; David J Vanness; Yajuan Si; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Amanda B Francescatti; Patricia A Spears; Jeffrey Havlena; Taiwo Adesoye; Daniel McKellar; David Winchester; Elizabeth S Burnside; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.344