Tina W F Yen1,2,3, Zhuping Garacci4, Purushottam W Laud5,4, Liliana E Pezzin5,4, Ann B Nattinger6,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. tyen@mcw.edu. 2. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. tyen@mcw.edu. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. tyen@mcw.edu. 4. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Institute for Health and Equity, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this large nationwide study was to validate two novel composite treatment scores that address guideline-concordant locoregional and systemic breast cancer care. We examined the relationship between these two scores and their association with survival. METHODS: Women with Stage I-III unilateral breast cancer were identified within the National Cancer Database. For each woman, a locoregional and a systemic treatment score (0, 1, 2) was assigned based on receipt of guideline-concordant care. Multivariable Cox regression models evaluated the association between the scores and survival. RESULTS: 623,756 women were treated at 1,221 different American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) facilities. Overall, 86% had a locoregional treatment score of 2 (most guideline-concordant), 75% had a systemic treatment score of 2, and 72% had both scores of 2. Median follow-up was 4.5 years. Compared to women with a locoregional treatment score of 2, those with a score of 1 or 0 had a 1.7-fold and 2.0-fold adjusted greater risk of death. Compared to women with a systemic treatment score of 2, those with a score of 1 or 0 had a 1.5-fold and 2.1-fold adjusted greater risk of death. Risk-adjusted 5-year overall survival was 91.6% when both scores were 2 compared to 73.4% when both scores were 0. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national study of CoC facilities, two composite scores capturing guideline-concordant breast cancer care had independent and combined robust effects on survival. These clinically constructed novel scores are promising tools for health services research and quality-of-care studies.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this large nationwide study was to validate two novel composite treatment scores that address guideline-concordant locoregional and systemic breast cancer care. We examined the relationship between these two scores and their association with survival. METHODS:Women with Stage I-III unilateral breast cancer were identified within the National Cancer Database. For each woman, a locoregional and a systemic treatment score (0, 1, 2) was assigned based on receipt of guideline-concordant care. Multivariable Cox regression models evaluated the association between the scores and survival. RESULTS: 623,756 women were treated at 1,221 different American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) facilities. Overall, 86% had a locoregional treatment score of 2 (most guideline-concordant), 75% had a systemic treatment score of 2, and 72% had both scores of 2. Median follow-up was 4.5 years. Compared to women with a locoregional treatment score of 2, those with a score of 1 or 0 had a 1.7-fold and 2.0-fold adjusted greater risk of death. Compared to women with a systemic treatment score of 2, those with a score of 1 or 0 had a 1.5-fold and 2.1-fold adjusted greater risk of death. Risk-adjusted 5-year overall survival was 91.6% when both scores were 2 compared to 73.4% when both scores were 0. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national study of CoC facilities, two composite scores capturing guideline-concordant breast cancer care had independent and combined robust effects on survival. These clinically constructed novel scores are promising tools for health services research and quality-of-care studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Chemotherapy; Hormonal therapy; National cancer database; Radiation therapy; Surgical margins; Survival; Treatment
Authors: A Recht; S B Edge; L J Solin; D S Robinson; A Estabrook; R E Fine; G F Fleming; S Formenti; C Hudis; J J Kirshner; D A Krause; R R Kuske; A S Langer; G W Sledge; T J Whelan; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A C Voogd; M Nielsen; J L Peterse; M Blichert-Toft; H Bartelink; M Overgaard; G van Tienhoven; K W Andersen; R J Sylvester; J A van Dongen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W A Ghali; H Quan; R Brant; G van Melle; C M Norris; P D Faris; P D Galbraith; M L Knudtson Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-09-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tina W F Yen; Liliana E Pezzin; Jianing Li; Rodney Sparapani; Purushuttom W Laud; Ann B Nattinger Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E Botteri; V Bagnardi; N Rotmensz; O Gentilini; D Disalvatore; B Bazolli; A Luini; U Veronesi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tom Maishman; Ramsey I Cutress; Aurea Hernandez; Sue Gerty; Ellen R Copson; Lorraine Durcan; Diana M Eccles Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969