Xiaolian Lai1,2, Wei Han3, Hanqun Zhang4, Jing Hou5, Guanghui Wang5, Xiaoqing Luo4, Xin Li4, Qi Wang6,7, Yi Zhang8, Hua Wang5,9, Yong Li4. 1. Guizhou University Medical College, Guiyang, China. 2. Department of Central Laboratory, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China. 3. Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China. 4. Department of Oncology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China. 6. Department of Occupational Health and Occupational Diseases, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 7. China Canada Medical and Health Science Association, Toronto, Canada. 8. Department of Hygiene Toxicology, School of Public Health, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China. 9. Department of Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
Background: Previous research suggested that radiotherapy (RT) had a small absolute benefit in patients with low-risk breast cancer over the age of 65. To reduce the patient's treatment burden and cost, as well as the damage to normal tissue, this study sought to explore the prognostic role of RT after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in elderly patients. Methods: Patients who were aged ≥65 years, stage T1N0M0, and estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positive (ER+/PR+) were included in this study. Age, marital status, histology, race, grade, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), subtype, treatment method, and survival were also collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015. We compared overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) before and after propensity score matching (PSM) in the patients who underwent BCS with or without RT. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used in our study. Results: The data of 3,623 patients were analyzed in this study. Among them, 2,851 (78.69%) patients had received RT. The multivariate analyses before PSM showed that RT resulted in better OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.62, P<0.001], and BCSS (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, P<0.001). The multivariate analyses after PSM (n=1,538) confirmed that patients who received RT (n=769) had a longer survival time than those who did not (n=769) (OS: HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95, P=0.018; and BCSS: HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35-0.93, P=0.025). The survival analysis showed that patients receiving RT had a better OS (P=0.028) and BCSS (P=0.016) than those who did not receive RT. However, there were no significant differences in patients' OS and BCSS with or without RT across the different age subgroups (P>0.05). Conclusions: In our study, patients who received RT had a longer survival time. However, the age subgroup analysis showed that RT did not have any survival benefit in elderly patients with T1N0M0 and ER+/PR+ breast cancer. Furthermore, at the age of 65-69 years, the P value for OS approached 0.05, which suggests that the decision to administer RT in this patient group should be made based on each patient's condition. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: Previous research suggested that radiotherapy (RT) had a small absolute benefit in patients with low-risk breast cancer over the age of 65. To reduce the patient's treatment burden and cost, as well as the damage to normal tissue, this study sought to explore the prognostic role of RT after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in elderly patients. Methods: Patients who were aged ≥65 years, stage T1N0M0, and estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positive (ER+/PR+) were included in this study. Age, marital status, histology, race, grade, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), subtype, treatment method, and survival were also collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015. We compared overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) before and after propensity score matching (PSM) in the patients who underwent BCS with or without RT. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used in our study. Results: The data of 3,623 patients were analyzed in this study. Among them, 2,851 (78.69%) patients had received RT. The multivariate analyses before PSM showed that RT resulted in better OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.62, P<0.001], and BCSS (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, P<0.001). The multivariate analyses after PSM (n=1,538) confirmed that patients who received RT (n=769) had a longer survival time than those who did not (n=769) (OS: HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95, P=0.018; and BCSS: HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35-0.93, P=0.025). The survival analysis showed that patients receiving RT had a better OS (P=0.028) and BCSS (P=0.016) than those who did not receive RT. However, there were no significant differences in patients' OS and BCSS with or without RT across the different age subgroups (P>0.05). Conclusions: In our study, patients who received RT had a longer survival time. However, the age subgroup analysis showed that RT did not have any survival benefit in elderly patients with T1N0M0 and ER+/PR+ breast cancer. Furthermore, at the age of 65-69 years, the P value for OS approached 0.05, which suggests that the decision to administer RT in this patient group should be made based on each patient's condition. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast-conserving surgery (BCS); Epidemiology; Surveillance; and End Results (SEER); prognosis; radiotherapy (RT); survival
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Fredrik Wärnberg; Hans Garmo; Stefan Emdin; Veronica Hedberg; Linda Adwall; Kerstin Sandelin; Anita Ringberg; Per Karlsson; Lars-Gunnar Arnesson; Harald Anderson; Karin Jirström; Lars Holmberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Jiemin Ma; Mia M Gaudet; Lisa A Newman; Kimberly D Miller; Ann Goding Sauer; Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca L Siegel Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Rachel A Freedman; Jared C Foster; Drew K Seisler; Jacqueline M Lafky; Hyman B Muss; Harvey J Cohen; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis; Ann H Partridge; Lisa A Carey; Constance Cirrincione; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Gretchen Kimmick; Aminah Jatoi; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony W Fyles; David R McCready; Lee A Manchul; Maureen E Trudeau; Patricia Merante; Melania Pintilie; Lorna M Weir; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E C Inwald; O Ortmann; M Koller; F Zeman; F Hofstädter; M Evert; G Brockhoff; M Klinkhammer-Schalke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.872