Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients

Sepideh Saadatmand, Reini Bretveld, Sabine Siesling, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, Sepideh Saadatmand, Reini Bretveld, Sabine Siesling, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the influence of stage at breast cancer diagnosis, tumour biology, and treatment on survival in contemporary times of better (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy.

Design: Prospective nationwide population based study.

Setting: Nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry.

Participants: Female patients with primary breast cancer diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 (n=173,797), subdivided into two time cohorts on the basis of breast cancer diagnosis: 1999-2005 (n=80,228) and 2006-12 (n=93,569).

Main outcome measures: Relative survival was compared between the two cohorts. Influence of traditional prognostic factors on overall mortality was analysed with Cox regression for each cohort separately.

Results: Compared with 1999-2005, patients from 2006-12 had smaller (≤ T1 65% (n=60,570) v 60% (n=48,031); P<0.001), more often lymph node negative (N0 68% (n=63,544) v 65% (n=52,238); P<0.001) tumours, but they received more chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy (neo-adjuvant/adjuvant systemic therapy 60% (n=56,402) v 53% (n=42,185); P<0.001). Median follow-up was 9.8 years for 1999-2005 and 3.9 years for 2006-12. The relative five year survival rate in 2006-12 was 96%, improved in all tumour and nodal stages compared with 1999-2005, and 100% in tumours ≤ 1 cm. In multivariable analyses adjusted for age and tumour type, overall mortality was decreased by surgery (especially breast conserving), radiotherapy, and systemic therapies. Mortality increased with progressing tumour size in both cohorts (2006-12 T1c v T1a: hazard ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 1.78), but without a significant difference in invasive breast cancers until 1 cm (2006-12 T1b v T1a: hazard ratio 1.04, 0.88 to 1.22), and independently with progressing number of positive lymph nodes (2006-12 N1 v N0: 1.25, 1.17 to 1.32).

Conclusions: Tumour stage at diagnosis of breast cancer still influences overall survival significantly in the current era of effective systemic therapy. Diagnosis of breast cancer at an early tumour stage remains vital.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

© Saadatmand et al 2015.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4784814/bin/saas026809.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Tumour stage specific relative survival of breast cancer patients in Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed as having breast cancer in 1999-2005 (top) and 2006-12 (bottom). Relative survival was defined as observed survival divided by expected survival of corresponding general population, matched by sex, age, and year of diagnosis. Tis=ductal carcinoma in situ; T1a=≤0.5 cm (including micro-invasion); T1b=>0.5 cm and ≤1 cm; T1c=>1 cm and ≤2 cm; T2=>2 cm and ≤5 cm; T3=>5 cm; T4=any size with direct extension to chest wall and/or skin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4784814/bin/saas026809.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Nodal stage specific relative survival of breast cancer patients in Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed as having breast cancer in 1999-2005 (top) and 2006-12 (bottom). Relative survival was defined as observed survival divided by expected survival of corresponding general population, matched by sex, age, and year of diagnosis. N0=no pathologically assessed regional lymph nodes with metastasis/isolated tumour cells; N1=metastasis in 1-3 regional lymph nodes; N2=metastasis in 4-9 regional lymph nodes; N3=metastasis in ≥10 regional lymph nodes

References

    1. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015;385:977-1010.
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:5-29.
    1. Cossetti RJ, Tyldesley SK, Speers CH, et al. Comparison of breast cancer recurrence and outcome patterns between patients treated from 1986 to 1992 and from 2004 to 2008. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:65-73.
    1. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:252-71.
    1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-92.
    1. De Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J, et al. The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Cancer 2015;137:165-72.
    1. Brekelmans CT, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Seynaeve C, et al. Tumour characteristics, survival and prognostic factors of hereditary breast cancer from BRCA2-, BRCA1- and non-BRCA1/2 families as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:867-76.
    1. Colzani E, Liljegren A, Johansson AL, et al. Prognosis of patients with breast cancer: causes of death and effects of time since diagnosis, age, and tumor characteristics. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4014-21.
    1. De Boer M, van Dijck JA, Bult P, et al. Breast cancer prognosis and occult lymph node metastases, isolated tumor cells, and micrometastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:410-25.
    1. Tan LK, Giri D, Hummer AJ, et al. Occult axillary node metastases in breast cancer are prognostically significant: results in 368 node-negative patients with 20-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1803-9.
    1. Verbeek AL, Broeders MJ, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening, National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening. Evaluation of the Netherlands breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1203-5.
    1. Mittendorf EA, Ballman KV, McCall LM, et al. Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1119-27.
    1. Roumen RM, Pijpers HJ, Thunnissen FB, et al. [Summary of the guideline ‘Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer.’ Dutch Work Group ‘Sentinel Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer’]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000;144:1864-7.
    1. Ho VK, van der Heiden-van der Loo M, Rutgers EJ, et al. Implementation of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:683-91.
    1. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1673-84.
    1. Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3744-52.
    1. De Munck L, Schaapveld M, Siesling S, et al. Implementation of trastuzumab in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;129:229-33.
    1. Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (NABON). Richtlijn behandeling van het mammacarcinoom 2005. .
    1. Van Herk-Sukel MP, van de Poll-Franse LV, Creemers GJ, et al. Major changes in chemotherapy regimens administered to breast cancer patients during 2000-2008 in the Netherlands. Breast J 2013;19:394-401.
    1. Moossdorff M, van Roozendaal LM, Strobbe LJ, et al. Maastricht Delphi consensus on event definitions for classification of recurrence in breast cancer research. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(12).
    1. Edge BD, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds). AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Springer, 2009:345-76.
    1. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3153-8.
    1. Hudis CA, Barlow WE, Costantino JP, et al. Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2127-32.
    1. Dickman PW, Sloggett A, Hills M, et al. Regression models for relative survival. Stat Med 2004;23:51-64.
    1. Cole TJ. Setting number of decimal places for reporting risk ratios: rule of four. BMJ 2015;350:h1845.
    1. Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands. Population; gender, age, marital status and region, January 1. 1999-2012. .
    1. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181-7.
    1. Duffy SW, Smith RA, Yen AMF, Tabar L. Real and artificial controversies in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Manag 2013;2:519-28.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere