Jahan J Mohiuddin1, Allison M Deal2, Lisa A Carey3, Jennifer L Lund4, Brock R Baker1, Timothy M Zagar5, Ellen L Jones5, Lawrence B Marks5, Ronald C Chen6. 1. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 6. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: ronald_chen@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical trials have shown that neoadjuvant systemic therapy has a benefit in women who are borderline lumpectomy candidates and in those with locally advanced breast cancers by reducing the mastectomy rate and making inoperable tumors operable. The study aim was to examine the patterns of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy use among younger women in the United States treated at different types of cancer centers. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the National Cancer Data Base for 118,086 women younger than 65 years with clinical stage IIA (T2N0 only) to IIIC breast cancer. Following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline categorization, patients were grouped into those who were borderline lumpectomy candidates (clinical stage IIA [T2N0 only], IIB, or IIIA [T3N1 only]) or those with locally advanced disease (clinical stage IIIA [T0-3N2 only], IIIB, or IIIC). The main outcome was the proportion of women who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. RESULTS: Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy ranged from 17% (stage IIA) to 79% (stage IIIB). Across almost all stage and receptor subtypes, the use was lower in community vs academic centers. On multivariable analysis, use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was decreased in community vs academic centers (borderline lumpectomy candidates: adjusted risk ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77; locally advanced disease: adjusted risk ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Use of guideline-concordant neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly higher among women treated at academic vs community centers in young and healthy women who do not commonly have contraindications to this treatment. Our study identified a potential disparity in cancer care by type of center where patients receive treatment.
BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical trials have shown that neoadjuvant systemic therapy has a benefit in women who are borderline lumpectomy candidates and in those with locally advanced breast cancers by reducing the mastectomy rate and making inoperable tumors operable. The study aim was to examine the patterns of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy use among younger women in the United States treated at different types of cancer centers. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the National Cancer Data Base for 118,086 women younger than 65 years with clinical stage IIA (T2N0 only) to IIIC breast cancer. Following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline categorization, patients were grouped into those who were borderline lumpectomy candidates (clinical stage IIA [T2N0 only], IIB, or IIIA [T3N1 only]) or those with locally advanced disease (clinical stage IIIA [T0-3N2 only], IIIB, or IIIC). The main outcome was the proportion of women who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. RESULTS: Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy ranged from 17% (stage IIA) to 79% (stage IIIB). Across almost all stage and receptor subtypes, the use was lower in community vs academic centers. On multivariable analysis, use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was decreased in community vs academic centers (borderline lumpectomy candidates: adjusted risk ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77; locally advanced disease: adjusted risk ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Use of guideline-concordant neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly higher among women treated at academic vs community centers in young and healthy women who do not commonly have contraindications to this treatment. Our study identified a potential disparity in cancer care by type of center where patients receive treatment.
Authors: Anthony E Dragun; Jianmin Pan; Elizabeth C Riley; Barbara Kruse; Mary R Wilson; Shesh Rai; Dharamvir Jain Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Clifford A Hudis; Steven J Isakoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena Moran; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Laura Grimmer; Erik Liederbach; Jose Velasco; Catherine Pesce; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Katharine Yao Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ian E Smith; Mitch Dowsett; Stephen R Ebbs; J Michael Dixon; Anthony Skene; J-U Blohmer; Susan E Ashley; Stephen Francis; Irene Boeddinghaus; Geraldine Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helmneh M Sineshaw; Rachel A Freedman; Elizabeth M Ward; W Dana Flanders; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S M Swain; R A Sorace; C S Bagley; D N Danforth; J Bader; M N Wesley; S M Steinberg; M E Lippman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1987-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J A van der Hage; C J van de Velde; J P Julien; M Tubiana-Hulin; C Vandervelden; L Duchateau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cecilia T Ong; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel C Blitzblau; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Tristen S Park; Jennifer K Plichta; Laura H Rosenberger; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang; Rachel A Greenup Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Larissa A Korde; Mark R Somerfield; Lisa A Carey; Jennie R Crews; Neelima Denduluri; E Shelley Hwang; Seema A Khan; Sibylle Loibl; Elizabeth A Morris; Alejandra Perez; Meredith M Regan; Patricia A Spears; Preeti K Sudheendra; W Fraser Symmans; Rachel L Yung; Brittany E Harvey; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul Ruff; Herbert Cubasch; Maureen Joffe; Evan Rosenbaum; Nivashni Murugan; Ming-Chih Tsai; Oluwatosin Ayeni; Katherine D Crew; Judith S Jacobson; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Amy C Moreno; Ning Zhang; Sharon H Giordano; Zhongxing Liao; Daniel Gomez; Joe Y Chang; Steven H Lin Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2018-11-30
Authors: Sarah Nietz; Daniel S O'Neil; Oluwatosin Ayeni; Wenlong Carl Chen; Maureen Joffe; Judith S Jacobson; Alfred I Neugut; Paul Ruff; Witness Mapanga; Ines Buccimazza; Urishka Singh; Sharon Čačala; Laura Stopforth; Boitumelo Phakathi; Tobias Chirwa; Herbert Cubasch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.872