Ines Vaz-Luis1, Melissa E Hughes1, Angel M Cronin1, Hope S Rugo2, Stephen B Edge3, Beverly Moy4, Richard L Theriault5, Michael J Hassett1, Eric P Winer1, Nancy U Lin1. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of, Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among patients with stage I breast cancer, there is significant uncertainty concerning the optimal threshold at which to consider chemotherapy, and when considered, there is controversy regarding whether to consider non-intensive versus intensive regimens. The authors examined the types and costs of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer. METHODS: The current study was a prospective cohort study including patients with stage I breast cancer who were treated at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network center from 2000 through 2009. Stage was defined according to the version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual applicable at the time of diagnosis. Stratifying by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the authors examined the percentage of patients receiving intensive versus non-intensive chemotherapy regimens and the factors associated with type of chemotherapy administered using multivariable logistic regression. Costs of the most common regimens were estimated. RESULTS: Of 8907 patients, 33% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among those individuals, there was an increase in the use of intensive chemotherapy within the last decade, from 31% in 2000 through 2005 to 63% in 2008 through 2009 (including an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab) among patients with HER2-positive disease and from 15% in 2000 through 2005 to 41% in 2008 through 2009 among patients with HER2-negative disease (32% of patients with hormone receptor-positive and 59% of patients with triple-negative disease). Among patients treated with non-intensive regimens, there was an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide noted, with a decrease in the use of the doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide combination. The choice of regimen varied significantly by institution. The major drivers of cost variation were the incorporation of biologics (eg, trastuzumab) and growth factors, with significant variation even within non-intensive and intensive regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, there was an increase in use of intensive regimens among Stage I breast cancer, with striking institutional and cost variations.
BACKGROUND: Among patients with stage I breast cancer, there is significant uncertainty concerning the optimal threshold at which to consider chemotherapy, and when considered, there is controversy regarding whether to consider non-intensive versus intensive regimens. The authors examined the types and costs of adjuvant chemotherapy received among patients with stage I breast cancer. METHODS: The current study was a prospective cohort study including patients with stage I breast cancer who were treated at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network center from 2000 through 2009. Stage was defined according to the version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual applicable at the time of diagnosis. Stratifying by humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the authors examined the percentage of patients receiving intensive versus non-intensive chemotherapy regimens and the factors associated with type of chemotherapy administered using multivariable logistic regression. Costs of the most common regimens were estimated. RESULTS: Of 8907 patients, 33% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among those individuals, there was an increase in the use of intensive chemotherapy within the last decade, from 31% in 2000 through 2005 to 63% in 2008 through 2009 (including an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab) among patients with HER2-positive disease and from 15% in 2000 through 2005 to 41% in 2008 through 2009 among patients with HER2-negative disease (32% of patients with hormone receptor-positive and 59% of patients with triple-negative disease). Among patients treated with non-intensive regimens, there was an increase in the use of the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide noted, with a decrease in the use of the doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide combination. The choice of regimen varied significantly by institution. The major drivers of cost variation were the incorporation of biologics (eg, trastuzumab) and growth factors, with significant variation even within non-intensive and intensive regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, there was an increase in use of intensive regimens among Stage I breast cancer, with striking institutional and cost variations.
Authors: Stephen E Jones; Michael A Savin; Frankie Ann Holmes; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; Joanne L Blum; Svetislava Vukelja; Kristi J McIntyre; John E Pippen; James H Bordelon; Robert Kirby; John Sandbach; William J Hyman; Pankaj Khandelwal; Angel G Negron; Donald A Richards; Stephen P Anthony; Robert G Mennel; Kristi A Boehm; Walter G Meyer; Lina Asmar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dennis Slamon; Wolfgang Eiermann; Nicholas Robert; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Miguel Martin; Michael Press; John Mackey; John Glaspy; Arlene Chan; Marek Pawlicki; Tamas Pinter; Vicente Valero; Mei-Ching Liu; Guido Sauter; Gunter von Minckwitz; Frances Visco; Valerie Bee; Marc Buyse; Belguendouz Bendahmane; Isabelle Tabah-Fisch; Mary-Ann Lindsay; Alessandro Riva; John Crown Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen K Chia; Caroline H Speers; Cicely J Bryce; Malcolm M Hayes; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emer O Hanrahan; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sharon H Giordano; Roman Rouzier; Kristine R Broglio; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Vicente Valero Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel F Hayes; Ann D Thor; Lynn G Dressler; Donald Weaver; Susan Edgerton; David Cowan; Gloria Broadwater; Lori J Goldstein; Silvana Martino; James N Ingle; I Craig Henderson; Larry Norton; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis; Matthew J Ellis; Donald A Berry Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rinaa S Punglia; Melissa E Hughes; Stephen B Edge; Richard L Theriault; Michael A Bookman; John L Wilson; Rebecca A Ottesen; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ines Vaz-Luis; Romualdo Barroso-Sousa; Antonio Di Meglio; Jiani Hu; Rebecca Rees; Natalie Sinclair; Lindsey Milisits; Jose Pablo Leone; Michael Constantine; Meredith Faggen; Frederick Briccetti; Caroline Block; Kelly O'Neil; Ann Partridge; Harold Burstein; Adrienne G Waks; Lorenzo Trippa; Sara M Tolaney; Michael Hassett; Eric P Winer; Nancy U Lin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 44.544