ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Older patients with breast cancer are often not treated in accordance with guidelines. With the emergence of endocrine therapy, omission of surgery can be considered in some patients. The aim of this population-based study was to investigate time trends in surgical treatment between 1995 and 2011, and to evaluate the effects of omitting surgery on overall and relative survival in older patients with resectable breast cancer. METHODS: Patients aged 75 years and older with stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2011 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Time trends of all treatment modalities were evaluated using linear regression models. Changes in overall survival were calculated by Cox regression. Relative survival was calculated using the Ederer II method. RESULTS: Overall, 26 292 patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving surgical treatment decreased significantly, from 90·8 per cent in 1995 to 69·9 per cent in 2011 (P < 0·001). Multivariable analysis showed that overall survival did not change over time (hazard ratio 1·00 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·99 to 1·00) per year); nor did relative survival (relative excess risk 1·00 (0·98 to 1·02) per year). CONCLUSION: Omission of surgery has become more common in older patients with breast cancer during the past 15 years in the Netherlands, but this has not altered overall or relative survival.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prognosis , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
To identify ways to improve cancer care for older patients, we set out to examine how older patients in the Netherlands are currently being evaluated prior to oncological treatment and to explore the potential obstacles in the incorporation of a geriatric evaluation, using a web-based survey sent to Dutch medical oncology specialists and oncology nursing specialists. The response rate was 34% (183 out of 544). Two-thirds of respondents reported that a geriatric evaluation was being used, although primarily on an ad hoc basis only. Most respondents expressed a desire for a routine evaluation or more intensive collaboration with the geriatrician and 86% of respondents who were not using a geriatric evaluation expressed their interest to do so. The most important obstacles were a lack of time or personnel and insufficient availability of a geriatrician to perform the assessment. Thus, over 30% of oncology professionals in the Netherlands express an interest in geriatric oncology. Important obstacles to a routine implementation of a geriatric evaluation are a lack of time, or insufficient availability of geriatricians; this could be overcome with policies that acknowledge that quality cancer care for older patients requires the investment of time and personnel.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/standards , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/therapy , Oncology Nursing/standards , Specialization , Adult , Aged , Attitude of Health Personnel , Clinical Competence , Cooperative Behavior , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/nursing , Netherlands , Nurse Clinicians/psychology , Patient SatisfactionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Expression of inhibitor of apoptosis family proteins (IAPs) has been shown in vitro to decrease chemosensitivity through caspase inhibition. However, the role of IAPs as predictors of response to chemotherapy in cancer patients remains to be determined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using immunohistochemistry, we assessed the expression of the IAP proteins c-IAP1, c-IAP2, and XIAP on tumors from 55 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy, and correlated that with the observed response to chemotherapy, time to progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Differences were observed in the pattern of staining among the IAP proteins. The expression of c-IAP2 and XIAP was exclusively cytoplasmic. whereas c-IAP1 also displayed nuclear staining. The median expression of tumor cells for c-IAP1, c-IAP2, and XIAP was 70%, 45%, and 25%, respectively, and a correlation was observed between c-IAP1 and c-IAP2 (P = 0.004), and c-IAP1 and XIAP expression (P = 0.013). However, no association was seen between the expression of these proteins and sex, age, tumor size, stage, histology and grade of differentiation. Interestingly, expression of c-IAP1, c-IAP2, and XIAP did not predict response to chemotherapy. In addition, the expression of IAPs had no impact on the time to progression or overall survival of this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that: 1) there are differences in the level of expression and in the subcellular distribution of c-IAP1, c-IAP2, and XIAP in tumors derived from NSCLC patients. 2) The expression of c-IAP1, c-IAP2 and XIAP does not predict the response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. 3) The relation between expression of IAPs and chemosensitivity in cancer patients may be more complex than anticipated by in vitro data.
