| Literature DB >> 30027004 |
Raj Singh1, Hayden Ansinelli2, Heather Katz3, Hassaan Jafri4, Todd Gress4, Maria T Tirona5.
Abstract
Background Functional status has been previously shown in the elderly cancer population to predict both mortality as well as treatment tolerance. The goal of this study was to determine if there are certain subsets of the elderly breast cancer population that are at higher risk of experiencing functional decline following treatment. Methods Patient charts from the Edwards Comprehensive Cancer Center in Huntington, West Virginia, from January 2006 - January 2016 were reviewed. Relevant inclusion criteria included patients of 65 years of age and older with a new diagnosis of Stage 0-III breast cancer. Functional decline was defined as an increase of at least one point in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores within one year of diagnosis. ECOG performance status was subjectively determined by the physician. Fisher's exact test and Pearson's Chi-squared test were initially utilized to assess potential factors associated with functional decline such as pretreatment ECOG score, age at diagnosis, stage, hormone receptor status, type of surgery received, whether radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or hormonal therapy was received, medical comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), complaints of weakness at diagnosis, and ambulatory status. Factors that were found to be significant were further assessed via multivariate logistic regressions. Results Three-hundred and fourteen patients were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. At one-year follow-up, 45 patients (14.3% of the cohort) had documented functional decline. On initial analysis, factors associated with functional decline included Stage III disease (p=0.002) and complaints of weakness at diagnosis (p=0.004). Following multivariate analysis, Stage III disease (p = 0.02), complaints of weakness at diagnosis (p = 0.04), and bilateral mastectomy (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with functional decline. Conclusion Patients who were diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer, had complaints of weakness at time of diagnosis, or had bilateral mastectomies were more likely to have a decline in functional status at one-year follow-up. Awareness of factors associated with functional decline in the elderly Appalachian population with Stage 0-III breast cancer will be useful during discussions regarding patient expectations, treatment, and goals of care. Elderly breast cancer patients for whom bilateral prophylactic mastectomies are not indicated may be better served by lumpectomy alone (based on patient age, hormone receptor status, and tumor size), lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy, or unilateral mastectomy to maximize the likelihood of functional preservation following treatment.Entities:
Keywords: appalachia; breast cancer; elderly; functional decline
Year: 2018 PMID: 30027004 PMCID: PMC6044479 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Summary of Patient Characteristics
ER: Estrogen Receptor, PR: Progesterone Receptor, HER2: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2, BMI: Body Mass Index, ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
| Variable | Number of patients (% of cohort) |
| Age at diagnosis | 65 – 69 years: 127 (40.4%) |
| 70-79 years: 138 (43.9%) | |
| >80 years: 49 (15.6%) | |
| Pathology | Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) – 53 (16.8%) |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) – 222 (70.7%) | |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) – 21 (6.69%) | |
| Other – 18 (5.73%) | |
| Stage | Stage 0: 53 (16.8%) |
| Stage I-II: 238 (75.8%) | |
| Stage III: 23 (7.32%) | |
| Grade | Unknown Grade – 30 (9.55%) |
| Grade 1 – 120 (38.9%) | |
| Grade 2 – 95 (30.3%) | |
| Grade 3 – 67 (21.3%) | |
| ER/PR status | ER +/PR +: 223 (71.0%) |
| ER+/PR –: 42 (13.4%) | |
| ER -/PR –: 48 (15.3%) | |
| ER -/PR +: 1 (0.3%) | |
| HER2 status | HER2 +: 34 (10.8%) |
| HER2 -: 280 (89.2%) | |
| Chemotherapy | Yes: 94 (29.9%) |
| No: 220 (70.1%) | |
| Surgery | None: 19 (6.05%) |
| Lumpectomy: 150 (47.8%) | |
| Unilateral Mastectomy: 109 (34.7%) | |
| Bilateral Mastectomy: 36 (11.5%) | |
| Radiation Therapy | Yes: 147 (46.8%) |
| No: 138 (43.9%) | |
| Recommended but declined: 29 (9.23%) | |
| Endocrine Therapy | Yes: 216 (68.8%) |
| No: 98 (31.2%) | |
| Number of Medical Comorbidities | 0: 18 (5.73%) |
| 1: 78 (24.8%) | |
| 2: 77 (24.5%) | |
| 3: 6 (22.0%) | |
| 4: 42 (13.4%) | |
| 5 or greater: 30 (9.5%) | |
| BMI | Normal: 78 (24.8%) |
| Overweight: 95 (30.3%) | |
| Obese: 116 (36.9%) | |
| Super Morbidly Obese: 30 (9.55%) | |
| Pretreatment ECOG Score | 0- 162 (51.6%) |
| 1- 119 (37.9%) | |
| 2- 20 (6.37%) | |
| 3- 13 (4.14%) | |
| Weakness at time of diagnosis | Yes: 33 (10.5%) |
| No: 281 (89.5%) | |
| Ambulatory Status | Full: 285 (90.8%) |
| Assisted Device (cane or walker): 10 (3.18%) | |
| Wheelchair: 19 (6.05%) | |
| Tobacco Usage | Yes: 31 (9.87%) |
| History of but not current user: 63 (20.1%) | |
| Lifetime non-user: 220 (70.1%) |
Summary of Factors Predictive of Functional Decline on Initial Analysis
DCIS: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, IDC: Invasive Ductal Carcinoma, ILC: Invasive Lobular Carcinoma, ER: Estrogen Receptor, PR: Progesterone Receptor, HER2: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2, BMI: Body Mass Index, ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
| Variable | Functional decline [Number of Patients (%)] | p-value | ||
| No | Yes | Total | ||
|
| 0.58 | |||
| 65-69 | 112 (41.6) | 15 (33.3) | 127 (40.4) | |
| 70-79 | 116 (43.1) | 22 (48.8) | 138 (43.9) | |
| >80 | 41 (15.2) | 8 (17.7) | 49 (15.6) | |
|
| 0.16 | |||
| DCIS | 49 (18.2) | 4 (8.88) | 53 (16.8) | |
| IDC | 184(68.4) | 38 (84.4) | 222 (70.7) | |
| ILC | 18 (6.69) | 3 (6.67) | 21 (6.69) | |
| Other | 18 (6.69) | 0 (0.00) | 18 (5.73) | |
|
| 0.002 | |||
| Stage 0 | 49 (18.2) | 4 (8.89) | 53 (16.9) | |
| Stage I-II | 206 (76.6) | 32 (71.1) | 238 (75.8) | |
| Stage III | 49 (18.2) | 4 (8.89) | 53 (16.9) | |
|
| 0.53 | |||
| Unknown | 25 (9.29) | 5 (11.1) | 30 (9.55) | |
| 1 | 104 (38.6) | 18 (40.0) | 12 (38.9) | |
| 2 | 79 (29.4) | 16 (35.6) | 95 (30.3) | |
| 3 | 61 (22.7) | 6 (13.3) | 67 (21.3) | |
|
| 0.42 | |||
| ER+/PR+ | 187(69.5) | 36(80.0) | 223(71.0) | |
| ER+/PR- | 36(13.4) | 6 (13.3) | 42 (13.4) | |
| ER-/PR- | 45(16.7) | 3 (6.67) | 48 (15.3) | |
| ER-/PR+ | 1 (00.4) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (00.3) | |
|
| 0.07 | |||
| Positive | 27 (10.0) | 7 (15.6) | 34 (10.8) | |
| Negative | 242(90.0) | 38(84.4) | 280 (89.2) | |
|
| 0.08 | |||
| Yes | 75 (27.9) | 19 (42.2) | 94 (29.9) | |
| No | 194 (72.1) | 26 (57.8) | 220 (70.1) | |
|
| 0.14 | |||
| None | 18 (6.69) | 1 (2.22) | 19 (6.05) | |
| Lumpectomy | 132(49.1) | 18 (40.0) | 150 (47.8) | |
| Unilateral mastectomy | 92 (34.2) | 17 (37.8) | 109 (34.7) | |
| Bilateral mastectomy | 27 (10.0) | 9 (20.0) | 36 (11.5) | |
|
| 0.66 | |||
| Yes | 127(47.2) | 20 (44.4) | 147 (46.8) | |
| No | 119 (44.2) | 19 (4.22) | 138 (43.9) | |
| Recommended, but refused | 23 (8.55) | 6 (13.3) | 29 (9.23) | |
|
| 0.96 | |||
| Yes | 184 (68.4) | 32 (71.1) | 216 (68.8) | |
| No | 85 (31.6) | 13 (28.9) | 98 (31.2) | |
|
| 0.73 | |||
| 0 | 16 (5.95) | 2 (4.44) | 18 (5.73) | |
| 1 | 66 (24.5) | 12 (26.7) | 78 (24.8) | |
| 2 | 66 (24.5) | 11 (24.4) | 77 (24.5) | |
| 3 | 61 (22.7) | 8 (17.8) | 69 (22.0) | |
| 4 | 37 (13.8) | 5 (11.1) | 42 (13.4) | |
| 5 or greater | 23 (8.55) | 7 (15.6) | 30 (9.55) | |
|
| 0.19 | |||
| Normal | 62 (23.0) | 16 (35.6) | 78 (24.8) | |
| Overweight | 79 (29.4) | 16 (35.6) | 95 (30.3) | |
| Obese | 106 (39.4) | 10 (22.2) | 116 (36.9) | |
| Super Morbidly Obese | 22 (8.18) | 3 (6.67) | 25 (7.96) | |
|
| 0.006 | |||
| Yes | 23 (8.55) | 10 (22.2) | 33 (10.5) | |
| No | 246 (91.4) | 35 (77.8) | 281 (89.5) | |
|
| 0.03 | |||
| Full | 250 (92.9) | 35 (77.8) | 285 (90.8) | |
| Assisted devices (cane,walker) | 5 (1.86) | 5 (11.1) | 10 (3.18) | |
| Wheelchair | 14 (5.20) | 5 (11.1) | 19 (6.05) | |
|
| 0.38 | |||
| Yes | 24 (89.2) | 7 (15.6) | 31 (9.87) | |
| History of | 55 (20.4) | 8 (17.8) | 63 (20.1) | |
| No | 190 (70.6) | 30 (66.7) | 220 (70.1) | |