Emilie D Duchesneau1, Selena J An2, Paula D Strassle3, Katherine E Reeder-Hayes4,5, Kristalyn K Gallagher2,4, David W Ollila2,4, Stephanie M Downs-Canner2,4, Philip M Spanheimer6,7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Philip_Spanheimer@med.unc.edu. 7. Division of Surgical Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Philip_Spanheimer@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for small node-negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer remains controversial. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may risk overtreatment, whereas surgery first fails to identify patients with residual disease in need of escalated adjuvant systemic therapy. We investigated patient characteristics associated with receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult women with cT1-T2/N0, HER2+ breast cancer between 2013 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database who underwent surgery within 8 months of diagnosis were included. Patients were classified as receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus a surgery-first approach. We assessed the sociodemographic and clinical predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery first and associations between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer treatments using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: We identified 56,784 women, of whom 12,758 (22%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 29,139 (53%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 12,907 (24%) received no chemotherapy, and 1980 were missing chemotherapy information. After adjustment, cT2 stage was the strongest predictor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery first. Younger age and later diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In contrast, hormone receptor positivity, Black race, rural county, and government-funded or no health insurance were inversely associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In multivariable analyses, patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to have a mastectomy (vs. lumpectomy) and sentinel lymph node biopsy or no nodal surgery (vs. axillary lymph node dissection). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to receive multi-agent (vs. single-agent) chemotherapy than those who received adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in the utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy exist in women with HER2+ breast cancer, which reflect both clinical parameters and disparities. Optimal treatment strategies should be implemented equitably across sociodemographic groups.
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for small node-negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer remains controversial. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may risk overtreatment, whereas surgery first fails to identify patients with residual disease in need of escalated adjuvant systemic therapy. We investigated patient characteristics associated with receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult women with cT1-T2/N0, HER2+ breast cancer between 2013 and 2017 in the National Cancer Database who underwent surgery within 8 months of diagnosis were included. Patients were classified as receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus a surgery-first approach. We assessed the sociodemographic and clinical predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery first and associations between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer treatments using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: We identified 56,784 women, of whom 12,758 (22%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 29,139 (53%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 12,907 (24%) received no chemotherapy, and 1980 were missing chemotherapy information. After adjustment, cT2 stage was the strongest predictor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery first. Younger age and later diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In contrast, hormone receptor positivity, Black race, rural county, and government-funded or no health insurance were inversely associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In multivariable analyses, patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to have a mastectomy (vs. lumpectomy) and sentinel lymph node biopsy or no nodal surgery (vs. axillary lymph node dissection). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to receive multi-agent (vs. single-agent) chemotherapy than those who received adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in the utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy exist in women with HER2+ breast cancer, which reflect both clinical parameters and disparities. Optimal treatment strategies should be implemented equitably across sociodemographic groups.
Authors: Evandro de Azambuja; Andrew P Holmes; Martine Piccart-Gebhart; Eileen Holmes; Serena Di Cosimo; Ramona F Swaby; Michael Untch; Christian Jackisch; Istvan Lang; Ian Smith; Frances Boyle; Binghe Xu; Carlos H Barrios; Edith A Perez; Hatem A Azim; Sung-Bae Kim; Sherko Kuemmel; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Peter Vuylsteke; Ruey-Kuen Hsieh; Vera Gorbunova; Alexandru Eniu; Lydia Dreosti; Natalia Tavartkiladze; Richard D Gelber; Holger Eidtmann; José Baselga Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Max S Mano; Sibylle Loibl; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Michael Untch; Norman Wolmark; Priya Rastogi; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andres Redondo; Hans H Fischer; William Jacot; Alison K Conlin; Claudia Arce-Salinas; Irene L Wapnir; Christian Jackisch; Michael P DiGiovanna; Peter A Fasching; John P Crown; Pia Wülfing; Zhimin Shao; Elena Rota Caremoli; Haiyan Wu; Lisa H Lam; David Tesarowski; Melanie Smitt; Hannah Douthwaite; Stina M Singel; Charles E Geyer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Sara M Tolaney; Nabihah Tayob; Chau Dang; Denise A Yardley; Steven J Isakoff; Vicente Valero; Meredith Faggen; Therese Mulvey; Ron Bose; Jiani Hu; Douglas Weckstein; Antonio C Wolff; Katherine Reeder-Hayes; Hope S Rugo; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Dan Zuckerman; Lowell Hart; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Michael Constantine; Kit Cheng; Frederick Briccetti; Bryan Schneider; Audrey Merrill Garrett; Kelly Marcom; Kathy Albain; Patricia DeFusco; Nadine Tung; Blair Ardman; Rita Nanda; Rachel C Jankowitz; Mothaffar Rimawi; Vandana Abramson; Paula R Pohlmann; Catherine Van Poznak; Andres Forero-Torres; Minetta Liu; Kathryn Ruddy; Yue Zheng; Shoshana M Rosenberg; Richard D Gelber; Lorenzo Trippa; William Barry; Michelle DeMeo; Harold Burstein; Ann Partridge; Eric P Winer; Ian Krop Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 44.544