BACKGROUND: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) has been shown to reduce the risk of second breast cancer events in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). There is no population-level evaluation of AET use in DCIS patients after standardized reporting of estrogen receptor (ER) status in cancer registries in 2004. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with DCIS in the National Cancer Data Base between 2005 and 2012. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics as well as temporal trends associated with receipt of AET were evaluated by generalized linear regression. RESULTS: Among 206,255 DCIS patients, 36.5% received AET. Fewer than half of ER-positive patients (n = 62,146, 46.4%) received AET, with a modest but significant increase over time (43.6% in 2005 to 47.5% in 2012; unadjusted p trend <0.001). AET decreased among ER-negative patients (8.9-6.5%, p trend <0.001) over the same time period. On multivariate analysis, younger (<40 years) and older (≥70 years) women were less likely to receive AET than 50- to 59-year-old women (<40 years: relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.82-0.89; ≥70 years: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.81). ER-positive status conferred a 6.15-fold higher likelihood of receiving AET compared to ER-negative status (95% confidence interval 5.81-6.50). Women who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy were most likely to receive AET. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of AET is relatively low in the group of women most likely to benefit from its use, namely ER-positive patients who underwent BCS. Significant variation exists with respect to patient, tumor, site, and treatment factors. More tolerable drugs or clearer guideline recommendations may increase use.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) has been shown to reduce the risk of second breast cancer events in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). There is no population-level evaluation of AET use in DCIS patients after standardized reporting of estrogen receptor (ER) status in cancer registries in 2004. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with DCIS in the National Cancer Data Base between 2005 and 2012. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics as well as temporal trends associated with receipt of AET were evaluated by generalized linear regression. RESULTS: Among 206,255 DCIS patients, 36.5% received AET. Fewer than half of ER-positive patients (n = 62,146, 46.4%) received AET, with a modest but significant increase over time (43.6% in 2005 to 47.5% in 2012; unadjusted p trend <0.001). AET decreased among ER-negative patients (8.9-6.5%, p trend <0.001) over the same time period. On multivariate analysis, younger (<40 years) and older (≥70 years) women were less likely to receive AET than 50- to 59-year-old women (<40 years: relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.82-0.89; ≥70 years: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.81). ER-positive status conferred a 6.15-fold higher likelihood of receiving AET compared to ER-negative status (95% confidence interval 5.81-6.50). Women who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy were most likely to receive AET. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of AET is relatively low in the group of women most likely to benefit from its use, namely ER-positive patients who underwent BCS. Significant variation exists with respect to patient, tumor, site, and treatment factors. More tolerable drugs or clearer guideline recommendations may increase use.
Authors: Paul E Goss; James N Ingle; José E Alés-Martínez; Angela M Cheung; Rowan T Chlebowski; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Anne McTiernan; John Robbins; Karen C Johnson; Lisa W Martin; Eric Winquist; Gloria E Sarto; Judy E Garber; Carol J Fabian; Pascal Pujol; Elizabeth Maunsell; Patricia Farmer; Karen A Gelmon; Dongsheng Tu; Harriet Richardson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura A Lee; Melvin J Silverstein; Cathie T Chung; Heather Macdonald; Premal Sanghavi; Melinda Epstein; Dennis R Holmes; Howard Silberman; Wei Ye; Michael D Lagios Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Faina Nakhlis; Laura Lazarus; Nanjiang Hou; Simbi Acharya; Seema A Khan; Valerie L Staradub; Alfred W Rademaker; Monica Morrow Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-08-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Reena S Cecchini; Walter M Cronin; Andre Robidoux; Therese B Bevers; Maureen T Kavanah; James N Atkins; Richard G Margolese; Carolyn D Runowicz; Joan M James; Leslie G Ford; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christopher R Friese; T May Pini; Yun Li; Paul H Abrahamse; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy K Janz; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: R Barry Hird; Alfred Chang; Vincent Cimmino; Kathleen Diehl; Michael Sabel; Celina Kleer; Mark Helvie; Anne Schott; Jennifer Young; Daniel Hayes; Lisa Newman Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lorie L Hughes; Molin Wang; David L Page; Robert Gray; Lawrence J Solin; Nancy E Davidson; Mary Ann Lowen; James N Ingle; Abram Recht; William C Wood Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis; Sharon Forsyth; Nigel J Bundred; John F Forbes; Hugh Bishop; Ian S Fentiman; William D George Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Chelsea Anderson; Anne Marie Meyer; Stephanie B Wheeler; Lei Zhou; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Hazel B Nichols Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-04-13
Authors: Chinwe C Madubata; Ying Liu; Melody S Goodman; Shumei Yun; Jennifer Yu; Min Lian; Graham A Colditz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.872