Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Surgery Delay Within a Coordinated Multihospital Community Health System: When Does Surgical Delay Impact Outcome?

BACKGROUND: Multiple factors influence the time elapsed between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgical extirpation of the primary tumor. The disease-free interval between resection of primary breast cancer and first evidence of recurrence is predictive of mortality. We aimed to determine patient, disease, and treatment factors associated with a delay in time to surgery (TTS) and identify the point when prolonged TTS negatively impacts disease-free survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer registry and electronic medical record data for patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery as first course of treatment during 2006-2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing surgery in ≤30 vs. 31-60 vs. >60 days of initial diagnosis were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate impact of time from breast cancer diagnosis to definitive therapeutic surgery on breast cancer recurrence or death (all-cause). RESULTS: Overall, 4462 patients were analyzed, 43.4% of whom underwent surgery beyond 30 days. The following factors were associated with TTS >30 days: age <50, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, commercial or health exchange/Medicaid insurance, diagnosis of noninvasive disease (i.e., ductal carcinoma in situ), had breast magnetic resonance imaging before definitive surgery, underwent total mastectomy (especially if immediate reconstruction, particularly if autologous, was performed), and did not receive adjuvant therapies (P < .001 for all). After adjusting for relevant variables, significant predictors of recurrence/death included a TTS >60 days, increased patient age, higher breast cancer stage, and triple-negative biomarker expression. CONCLUSION: Risk of recurrence or death is not compromised until TTS exceeds 60 days after initial breast cancer diagnosis.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with angina and heart failure in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Programme.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between angina pectoris and fatal and non-fatal clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HF-REF and HF-PEF, respectively). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 7599 patients in the CHARM program, 5408 had ischaemic heart disease; 3855 had HF-REF (ejection fraction ≤45%) and 1553 had HF-PEF. These patients were separated into three groups: no history of angina, previous angina, and current angina. Three coronary outcomes were examined: fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI); MI or hospitalization for unstable angina (UA); and MI, UA or coronary revascularization. The composite heart failure outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) was also analysed, along with its components and all-cause mortality. New York Heart Association functional class was worse in both HF-REF and HF-PEF patients with current angina compared with patients without angina (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005 respectively), despite similar clinical examination findings and ejection fraction. Patients with current angina had a higher risk of all three coronary outcomes (adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.8-3.1) than those without angina but did not have a higher risk of heart failure outcomes or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure current angina is associated with significantly more functional limitation and a higher risk of coronary events, across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction.