A T Chaudhry1, T A Koulis1,2,3, C Speers4, R A Olson1,2. 1. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 2. BC Cancer- Centre for the North, Prince George, BC. 3. BC Cancer-Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC. 4. BC Cancer-Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, BC.
Abstract
Purpose: The mainstay of treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis) involves surgery in the form of mastectomy or lumpectomy. Inconsistency in the use of endocrine therapy (et) for dcis is evident worldwide. We sought to assess the variation in et prescribing for patients with dcis across a population-based radiotherapy (rt) program and to identify variables that predict its use. Methods: Data from a breast cancer database were obtained for women diagnosed with dcis in British Columbia from 2009 to 2014. Associations between et use and patient characteristics were assessed by chi-square test and multilevel multivariate logistic regression. The Kaplan-Meier method, with propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis, was used to assess the effects of et on overall survival (os) and relapse-free survival (rfs). Results: For the 2336 dcis patients included in the study, et use was 13% in dcis patients overall, and 17% in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (er+) tumours treated with breast-conserving surgery and rt. Significant variation in et use by treatment centre was observed (range: 8%-23%; p < 0.001), and prescription of et by individual oncologists varied in the range 0%-40%. After controlling for confounding factors, age less than 50 years [odds ratio (or): 1.72; p = 0.01], treatment centre, er+ status (or: 5.33; p < 0.001), and rt use (or: 1.77; p < 0.001) were significant predictors of et use. No difference in os or rfs with the use of et was observed. Conclusions: In this population-based analysis, 13% of patients with dcis in British Columbia received et, with variation by treatment centre (8%-23%) and individual oncologist (0%-40%). Age less than 50 years, er+ status, and rt use were most associated with et use.
Purpose: The mainstay of treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis) involves surgery in the form of mastectomy or lumpectomy. Inconsistency in the use of endocrine therapy (et) for dcis is evident worldwide. We sought to assess the variation in et prescribing for patients with dcis across a population-based radiotherapy (rt) program and to identify variables that predict its use. Methods: Data from a breast cancer database were obtained for women diagnosed with dcis in British Columbia from 2009 to 2014. Associations between et use and patient characteristics were assessed by chi-square test and multilevel multivariate logistic regression. The Kaplan-Meier method, with propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis, was used to assess the effects of et on overall survival (os) and relapse-free survival (rfs). Results: For the 2336 dcis patients included in the study, et use was 13% in dcis patients overall, and 17% in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (er+) tumours treated with breast-conserving surgery and rt. Significant variation in et use by treatment centre was observed (range: 8%-23%; p < 0.001), and prescription of et by individual oncologists varied in the range 0%-40%. After controlling for confounding factors, age less than 50 years [odds ratio (or): 1.72; p = 0.01], treatment centre, er+ status (or: 5.33; p < 0.001), and rt use (or: 1.77; p < 0.001) were significant predictors of et use. No difference in os or rfs with the use of et was observed. Conclusions: In this population-based analysis, 13% of patients with dcis in British Columbia received et, with variation by treatment centre (8%-23%) and individual oncologist (0%-40%). Age less than 50 years, er+ status, and rt use were most associated with et use.
Entities:
Keywords:
British Columbia; dcis; endocrine therapy; prescribing; treatment variation
Authors: Philip Meijnen; Hester S A Oldenburg; Johannes L Peterse; Harry Bartelink; Emiel J Th Rutgers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-11-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A C Lo; P T Truong; E S Wai; A Nichol; L Weir; C Speers; M M Hayes; C Baliski; S Tyldesley Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Richard G Margolese; Reena S Cecchini; Thomas B Julian; Patricia A Ganz; Joseph P Costantino; Laura A Vallow; Kathy S Albain; Patrick W Whitworth; Mary E Cianfrocca; Adam M Brufsky; Howard M Gross; Gamini S Soori; Judith O Hopkins; Louis Fehrenbacher; Keren Sturtz; Timothy F Wozniak; Thomas E Seay; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Elaine S Wai; Mary L Lesperance; Cheryl S Alexander; Pauline T Truong; Matthew Culp; Patricia Moccia; Jennifer F Lindquist; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hazel B Nichols; Erin J A Bowles; Jessica Islam; Lawrence Madziwa; Til Stürmer; Diem-Thy Tran; Diana S M Buist Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-01-14