Jennifer K Plichta1,2, Yi Ren3, Caitlin E Marks4, Samantha M Thomas3,5, Rachel A Greenup4,3, Laura H Rosenberger4,3, Oluwadamilola M Fayanju4,3,6, Susan G R McDuff3,7, E Shelley Hwang4,3, Jeremy Force3,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. jennifer.plichta@duke.edu. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. jennifer.plichta@duke.edu. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men represent a small proportion of breast cancer diagnoses, and they are often excluded from clinical trials. Current treatments are largely extrapolated from evidence in women. We compare practice patterns between men and women with breast cancer following the publication of several landmark clinical trials in surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer (2004-2015) from the National Cancer Data Base were identified; subcohorts were created based on eligibility for NSABP-B06, CALGB 9343, and ACOSOG Z0011. Practice patterns were stratified by gender and compared. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were utilized to estimate the association between OS and gender. RESULTS: Of the 1,664,746 patients identified, 99% were women and 1% were men. Among NSABP-B06 eligible men, mastectomy rates did not change (consistently ~ 80%), and their adjusted OS was minimally worse compared with women (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.28). Following publication of CALGB 9343, omission of radiation after lumpectomy was less likely in men and lagged behind that of women, despite similar OS (male HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59-1.44). Application of ACOSOG Z0011 findings resulted in deescalation of axillary surgery for men and women with comparable OS (male HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of clinical trial results for men with breast cancer often mirrors that for women, despite exclusion from these studies. Furthermore, when study findings were applied to eligible patients, men and women demonstrated similar survival. Observational studies can help inform the potential application of study findings to this unique population and improve patient enrollment in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND:Men represent a small proportion of breast cancer diagnoses, and they are often excluded from clinical trials. Current treatments are largely extrapolated from evidence in women. We compare practice patterns between men and women with breast cancer following the publication of several landmark clinical trials in surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer (2004-2015) from the National Cancer Data Base were identified; subcohorts were created based on eligibility for NSABP-B06, CALGB 9343, and ACOSOG Z0011. Practice patterns were stratified by gender and compared. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were utilized to estimate the association between OS and gender. RESULTS: Of the 1,664,746 patients identified, 99% were women and 1% were men. Among NSABP-B06 eligible men, mastectomy rates did not change (consistently ~ 80%), and their adjusted OS was minimally worse compared with women (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.28). Following publication of CALGB 9343, omission of radiation after lumpectomy was less likely in men and lagged behind that of women, despite similar OS (male HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59-1.44). Application of ACOSOG Z0011 findings resulted in deescalation of axillary surgery for men and women with comparable OS (male HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of clinical trial results for men with breast cancer often mirrors that for women, despite exclusion from these studies. Furthermore, when study findings were applied to eligible patients, men and women demonstrated similar survival. Observational studies can help inform the potential application of study findings to this unique population and improve patient enrollment in clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast radiation; Breast surgery; Local–regional therapy; Male breast cancer
Authors: F Cardoso; J M S Bartlett; L Slaets; C H M van Deurzen; E van Leeuwen-Stok; P Porter; B Linderholm; I Hedenfalk; C Schröder; J Martens; J Bayani; C van Asperen; M Murray; C Hudis; L Middleton; J Vermeij; K Punie; J Fraser; M Nowaczyk; I T Rubio; S Aebi; C Kelly; K J Ruddy; E Winer; C Nilsson; L Dal Lago; L Korde; K Benstead; O Bogler; T Goulioti; A Peric; S Litière; K C Aalders; C Poncet; K Tryfonidis; S H Giordano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Larissa A Korde; Jo Anne Zujewski; Leah Kamin; Sharon Giordano; Susan Domchek; William F Anderson; John M S Bartlett; Karen Gelmon; Zeina Nahleh; Jonas Bergh; Bruno Cutuli; Giancarlo Pruneri; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Julie Gralow; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Fatima Cardoso Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L M De La Cruz; P T R Thiruchelvam; J Shivani; J Trina; S A Blankenship; C S Fisher Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B Fisher; M Bauer; R Margolese; R Poisson; Y Pilch; C Redmond; E Fisher; N Wolmark; M Deutsch; E Montague Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1985-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Emma C Fields; Peter DeWitt; Christine M Fisher; Rachel Rabinovitch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert Foerster; Frank G Foerster; Volkhard Wulff; Birgit Schubotz; Dieter Baaske; Matthias Wolfgarten; Walther C Kuhn; Christian Rudlowski Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 4.430