Comparison of breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy for treatment of early breast cancer in community hospitals

Although the results of clinical trials support breast-conserving therapy as a replacement for mastectomy in early breast cancer, the question remains,whether these results apply in routine clinical practice. In the present analysis the breast cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival of 464 consecutive patients with breast tumours ≤ 3 cm across undergoing breast-conserving therapy were compared with a group of 459 patients with similar extent of disease and period of diagnosis undergoing mastectomy. All patients were treated in community hospitals in the south-eastern Netherlands. Median follow-up of both treatment groups was 6.2 years. After adjustment for the prognostic effects of age, tumour size, axillary nodal status and adjuvant systemic therapy, neither breast cancer-specific survival nor recurrence-free survival differed significantly between the breast-conserving therapy group and the mastectomy group. This finding indicates that in routine clinical practice breast-conserving therapy may be as effective as mastectomy

Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival

Purpose: In contrast to other countries, the Dutch breast cancer guideline does not recommend re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in invasive tumor and does recommend whole-breast irradiation including boost. We investigated whether omitting re-excision as compared to performing re-excision affects prognosis with a retrospective population-based cohort study. Methods: The total cohort included 32,119 women with primary BCS for T1–T3 breast cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 from the nationwide Netherlands cancer registry. The subcohort included 10,433 patients in whom the resection margins were registered. Outcome measures were 5-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate, and 10-year overall survival (OS) rate. Results: In the total cohort, 25,878 (80.6%) did not have re-excision, 2368 (7.4%) had re-excision by BCS, and 3873 (12.1%) had re-excision by mastectomy. Five-year IBTR rates were 2.1, 2.8, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.001). In the subcohort, 7820 (75.0%) had negative margins without re-excision, 492 (4.7%) had focally positive margins without re-excision, 586 (5.6%) had focally positive margins and underwent re-excision, and 1535 (14.7%) had extensively positive margins and underwent re-excision. Five-year IBTR rate was 2.3, 2.9, 1.1, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.099). Compared to omitting re-excision, performing re-excision for focally positive margins was associated with lower risk of IBTR (adjusted HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.82), but not with DFS (adjusted HR 0.83 95% CI 0.59–1.17) nor with OS (adjusted HR 1.17 95% CI 0.87–1.59). Conclusion: Omitting re-excision in breast cancer patients for focally positive margins after BCS does not impair DFS and OS, provided that whole-breast irradiation including boost is given

Increased risks of third primary cancers of non-breast origin among women with bilateral breast cancer

Background: This study examined the risk of third cancer of non-breast origin (TNBC) among women with bilateral breast cancer (BBC; either synchronous or metachronous), focussing on the relation with breast cancer treatment.Methods:Risk was assessed, among 8752 Dutch women diagnosed with BBC between 1989 and 2008, using standardised incidence ratios (SIR) and Cox regression analyses to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of TNBC for different treatment modalities.Results:Significant increased SIRs were observed for all TNBCs combined, haematological malignancies, stomach, colorectal, non-melanoma skin, lung, head and neck, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. A 10-fold increased risk was found for ovarian cancer among women younger than 50 years (SIR10.0, 95% confidence interval (CI)5.3-17.4). Radiotherapy was associated with increased risks of all TNBCs combined (HR1.3; 95%CI1.1-1.6, respectively). Endocrine therapy was associated with increased risks of all TNBCs combined (HR1.2; 95%CI1.0-1.5), haematological malignancies (HR2.0; 95%CI1.1-3.9), and head and neck cancer (HR3.3; 95%CI1.1-10.4). After chemotherapy decreased risks were found for all TNBCs combined (HR0.63; 95%CI0.5-0.87).Conclusion:Increased risk of TNBC could be influenced by genetic factors (ovarian cancer) or an effect of treatment (radiotherapy and endocrine therapy). More insight in the TNBC risk should further optimise and individualise treatment and surveillance protocols in (young) women with BBC

Small but significant excess mortality compared with the general population for long-term survivors of breast cancer in the Netherlands

Background: Coinciding with the relatively good and improving prognosis for patients with stage I-III breast cancer, late recurrences, new primary tumours and late side-effects of treatment may occur. We gained insight into prognosis for long-term breast cancer survivors. Patients and methods: Data on all 205 827 females aged 15-89 diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer during 1989-2008 were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Conditional 5-year relative survival was calculated for every subsequent year from diagnosis up to 15 years. Results: For stage I, conditional 5-year relative survival remained ~95% up to 15 years after diagnosis (a stable 5-year excess mortality rate of 5%). For stage II, excess mortality remained 10% for those aged 15-44 or 45-59 and 15% for those aged 60-74. For stage III, excess mortality decreased from 35% at diagnosis to 10% at 15 years for those aged 15-44 or 45-59, and from ~40% to 30% for those aged ≥60. Conclusions: Patients with stage I or II breast cancer had a (very) good long-term prognosis, albeit exhibiting a small but significant excess mortality at least up to 15 years after diagnosis

Small but significant socioeconomic inequalities in axillary staging and treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands

Background: The use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB), lymph node dissection, breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal treatment for breast cancer was evaluated in relation to socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands, where access to care was assumed to be equal. Methods: Female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2008 were selected from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=176 505). Socioeconomic status was assessed based on income, employment and education at postal code level. Multivariable models included age, year of diagnosis and stage. Results: Sentinal node biopsy was less often applied in high-SES patients (multivariable analyses, ≤49 years: odds ratio (OR) 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.89); 50-75 years: 0.85 (0.73-0.99)). Additionally, lymph node dissection was less common in low-SES patients aged ≥76 years (OR 1.34 (0.95-1.89)). Socioeconomic status-related differences in treatment were only significant in the age group 50-75 years. High-SES women with stage T1-2 were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (radiotherapy) (OR 1.15 (1.09-1.22) and OR 1.16 (1.09-1.22), respectively). Chemotherapy use among node-positive patients was higher in the high-SES group, but was not significant in multivariable analysis. Hormonal therapy was not related to SES. Conclusion: Small but significant differences were observed in the use of SNB, lymph node dissection and breast-conserving surgery according to SES in Dutch breast cancer patients despite assumed equal access to health care