Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Women with Breast Cancer and Supraclavicular Nodal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: In 2002, breast cancer patients with supraclavicular nodal metastases (cN3c) were downstaged from AJCC stage IV to IIIc, prompting management with locoregional treatment. We sought to estimate the impact of multimodal therapy on overall survival (OS) in a contemporary cohort of cN3c patients. METHODS: Women ≥ 18 years with cT1-T4c/cN3c invasive breast cancer who underwent systemic therapy were identified from the 2004-2016 National Cancer Database. We compared three patient cohorts: (a) cN3c + multimodal therapy (systemic therapy, surgery, and radiation); (b) cN3c + non-standard therapy; and, (c) cM1. Logistic regression identified factors associated with receipt of multimodal therapy and Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate unadjusted OS. The Cox proportional hazards model estimated effects of diagnosis and treatment on OS after adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 1827 (3.7%) patients with cN3c disease and 46,919 (96.3%) cM1 patients were identified. Of cN3c patients, 74.5% (n = 1362) received multimodal therapy and 25.5% (n = 465) received non-standard therapy; receipt of multimodal therapy was associated with improved 5-year OS (multimodal: 59% vs. M1: 28% vs. non-standard: 28%, log-rank p < 0.001). Adjusting for covariates, non-standard therapy was associated with an increased risk of death compared with receipt of multimodal therapy (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.71-2.83, p < 0.001). Private insurance was the only patient characteristic associated with a greater likelihood of receiving multimodal therapy (OR 2.81; 95% CI, 1.64-4.82; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Women with cN3c breast cancer who received multimodal therapy demonstrated improved overall survival when compared with patients undergoing non-standard therapy and those with metastatic (M1) disease. Although selection bias may contribute to worse overall survival among cN3c patients undergoing non-standard therapy, national guidelines should encourage locoregional treatment in carefully selected patients.

Financial Costs and Burden Related to Decisions for Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a well-recognized adverse effect of cancer care, yet little is known about how women consider treatment costs when facing preference-sensitive decisions for breast cancer surgery or how surgical treatment choice affects financial harm. We sought to determine how financial costs and burden relate to decisions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Women (≥ 18 years old) with a history of breast cancer were recruited from the Army of Women and Sisters Network to complete an 88-item electronic survey. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to evaluate the impact of costs on surgical decisions and financial harm after breast cancer surgery. RESULTS: A total of 607 women with stage 0 to III breast cancer were included. Most were white (90%), were insured privately (70%) or by Medicare (25%), were college educated (78%), and reported household incomes of more than $74,000 (56%). Forty-three percent underwent breast-conserving surgery, 25% underwent mastectomy, 32% underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 36% underwent breast reconstruction. Twenty-eight percent reported that costs of treatment influenced their surgical decisions, and at incomes of $45,000 per year, costs were prioritized over breast preservation or appearance. Overall, 35% reported financial burden as a result of their cancer treatment, and 78% never discussed costs with their cancer team. When compared with breast-conserving surgery, bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction was significantly associated with higher incurred debt, significant to catastrophic financial burden, treatment-related financial hardship, and altered employment. Among the highest incomes, 65% of women were fiscally unprepared, reporting higher-than-expected (26%) treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Cancer treatment costs influenced decisions for breast cancer surgery, and comparably effective surgical treatments differed significantly in their risk of patient-reported financial burden, debt, and impact on employment. Cost transparency may inform preference-sensitive surgical decisions and improve patient-centered care.

Metaplastic Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes in 2500 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of a National Oncology Database.

BACKGROUND: Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is characterized by chemoresistance and hematogenous spread. We sought to identify factors associated with improved MBC outcomes and increased likelihood of MBC diagnosis. METHODS: Women ≥ 18 years of age with stage I-III MBC and non-MBC diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations with overall survival (OS). Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with MBC diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 2451 MBC and 568,057 non-MBC patients were included; 70.3% of MBC vs. 11.3% of non-MBC patients were triple negative (p < 0.001). Five-year OS was reduced among MBC vs. non-MBC patients for the entire cohort (72.7 vs. 87.5%) and among triple-negative patients (71.1 vs. 77.8%; both p < 0.001). In MBC, triple-negative (vs. luminal) subtype was not associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.54, p = 0.28). Compared with non-MBC patients, MBC patients were more likely to receive mastectomy (59.0 vs. 44.9%), chemotherapy (74.1 vs. 43.1%), and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND; 35.2 vs. 32.2%, all p ≤ 0.001). MBC patients more frequently had negative ALND (pN0) than non-MBC patients (20.0 vs. 10.6%, p < 0.001). Among MBC patients, chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, p = 0.004) and radiotherapy (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.69, p < 0.001) were associated with improved survival, while ALND was associated with decreased survival (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MBC patients had worse survival than non-MBC patients, independent of receptor status, suggesting that MBC may confer an additional survival disadvantage. Multimodal therapy was associated with improved outcomes, but ALND was not and may be overutilized in MBC.

Anatomy and Breast Cancer Staging: Is It Still Relevant?

Breast cancer staging concisely summarizes disease status, creating a framework for assessing and relaying prognostic information. The fundamental concepts and components of breast cancer staging are reviewed. The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which includes traditional anatomic factors, now includes additional tumor characteristics: tumor grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and (when available) multigene panel testing from the primary tumor. With these updates, staging provides the most reliable system for accurately predicting patient outcome. When the AJCC 8th edition guidelines are adopted, they will more closely reflect tumor biology.