Jiefeng Huang1,2, Zhiyong Wu3, Zechun Zhang3, Jie Li1,2, Yunhai Li1,2, Guosheng Ren1,2. 1. Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 2. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Epigenetics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 3. Diagnosis and Treatment Center of Breast Diseases, Shantou Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Shantou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to investigate whether the modified version of Adjuvant! Online was able to omit chemotherapy (CT) for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, and axillary node-negative breast cancer, who are defined as low clinical risk. METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, HR-positive, HER2-negative, and node-negative breast cancer patients aged 50 years and older were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 database. The propensity score matching method was applied between the no-CT and CT groups. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared across groups using a log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 48,857 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, the numbers of patients in the no-CT and CT groups were both 3,102. The median follow-up period was 37 months. The 5-year OS rates in the no-CT and CT groups were 92 and 91%, respectively (p = 0.066). In the subgroup with a tumor score (tumor size added to tumor grade) of 2-3, OS was significantly higher in the no-CT group than in the CT group (93 vs. 90%, p < 0.001). In the subgroup with a tumor score of 4, OS was not different between these 2 groups (92 vs. 93%, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study provides evidence that CT may not be beneficial to patients 50 years of age or older with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer and additionally defined as low clinical risk by a modified version of Adjuvant! Online.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to investigate whether the modified version of Adjuvant! Online was able to omit chemotherapy (CT) for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, and axillary node-negative breast cancer, who are defined as low clinical risk. METHODS: From 2010 to 2014, HR-positive, HER2-negative, and node-negative breast cancer patients aged 50 years and older were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 database. The propensity score matching method was applied between the no-CT and CT groups. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared across groups using a log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 48,857 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, the numbers of patients in the no-CT and CT groups were both 3,102. The median follow-up period was 37 months. The 5-year OS rates in the no-CT and CT groups were 92 and 91%, respectively (p = 0.066). In the subgroup with a tumor score (tumor size added to tumor grade) of 2-3, OS was significantly higher in the no-CT group than in the CT group (93 vs. 90%, p < 0.001). In the subgroup with a tumor score of 4, OS was not different between these 2 groups (92 vs. 93%, p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study provides evidence that CT may not be beneficial to patients 50 years of age or older with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer and additionally defined as low clinical risk by a modified version of Adjuvant! Online.
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Christopher R Friese; M Chandler McLeod; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; James L Connolly; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Hope S Rugo; Lawrence J Solin; Donald L Weaver; David J Winchester; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Rachel J D Cossetti; Scott K Tyldesley; Caroline H Speers; Yvonne Zheng; Karen A Gelmon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nienke A de Glas; Willemien van de Water; Ellen G Engelhardt; Esther Bastiaannet; Anton J M de Craen; Judith R Kroep; Hein Putter; Anne M Stiggelbout; Nir I Weijl; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Johanneke E A Portielje; Gerrit-Jan Liefers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Benjamin M Parsons; Jeffrey Landercasper; Angela L Smith; Ronald S Go; Andrew J Borgert; Leah L Dietrich Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Eiman Y Ibrahim; Saira Munshani; Ilaria Domenicano; Rozalyn Rodwin; Richard J Nowak; Lajos Pusztai; Maryam Lustberg; Barbara E Ehrlich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 3.752