Cargando…

Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort

BACKGROUND: Lead time, the interval between screen detection and when a disease would have become clinically evident, has been cited to explain longer survival times in mammography detected breast cancer cases (BC). METHODS: An institutional retrospective cohort study of BC outcomes related to detec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaplan, Henry G., Malmgren, Judith A., Atwood, Mary K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7678288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33218313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07609-3
_version_ 1783612125382443008
author Kaplan, Henry G.
Malmgren, Judith A.
Atwood, Mary K.
author_facet Kaplan, Henry G.
Malmgren, Judith A.
Atwood, Mary K.
author_sort Kaplan, Henry G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lead time, the interval between screen detection and when a disease would have become clinically evident, has been cited to explain longer survival times in mammography detected breast cancer cases (BC). METHODS: An institutional retrospective cohort study of BC outcomes related to detection method (mammography (MamD) vs. patient (PtD)). Cases were first primary invasive stage I-III BC, age 40–74 years (n = 6603), 1999–2016. Survival time was divided into 1) distant disease-free interval (DDFI) and 2) distant disease-specific survival (DDSS) as two separate time interval outcomes. We measured statistical association between detection method and diagnostic, treatment and outcome variables using bivariate comparisons, Cox proportional hazards analyses and mean comparisons. Outcomes were distant recurrence (n = 422), DDFI and DDSS. RESULTS: 39% of cases were PtD (n = 2566) and 61% were MamD (n = 4037). MamD cases had a higher percentage of Stage I tumors [MamD 69% stage I vs. PtD 31%, p < .001]. Rate of distant recurrence was 11% among PtD BC cases (n = 289) vs. 3% of MamD (n = 133) (p < .001). Order of factor entry into the distant recurrence time interval (DDFI) model was 1) TNM stage (p < .001), 2) HR/HER2 status (p < .001), 3) histologic grade (p = .005) and 4) detection method (p < .001). Unadjusted PtD DDFI mean time was 4.34 years and MamD 5.52 years (p < .001), however when stratified by stage, the most significant factor relative to distant recurrence, there was no significant difference between PtD and MamD BC. Distant disease specific survival time did not differ by detection method. CONCLUSION: We observed breast cancer distant disease-free interval to be primarily associated with stage at diagnosis and tumor characteristics with less contribution of detection method to the full model. Patient and mammography detected breast cancer mean lead time to distant recurrence differed significantly by detection method for all stages but not significantly within stage with no difference in time from distant recurrence to death. Lead time difference related to detection method appears to be present but may be less influential than other factors in distant disease-free and disease specific survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7678288
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76782882020-11-20 Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort Kaplan, Henry G. Malmgren, Judith A. Atwood, Mary K. BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Lead time, the interval between screen detection and when a disease would have become clinically evident, has been cited to explain longer survival times in mammography detected breast cancer cases (BC). METHODS: An institutional retrospective cohort study of BC outcomes related to detection method (mammography (MamD) vs. patient (PtD)). Cases were first primary invasive stage I-III BC, age 40–74 years (n = 6603), 1999–2016. Survival time was divided into 1) distant disease-free interval (DDFI) and 2) distant disease-specific survival (DDSS) as two separate time interval outcomes. We measured statistical association between detection method and diagnostic, treatment and outcome variables using bivariate comparisons, Cox proportional hazards analyses and mean comparisons. Outcomes were distant recurrence (n = 422), DDFI and DDSS. RESULTS: 39% of cases were PtD (n = 2566) and 61% were MamD (n = 4037). MamD cases had a higher percentage of Stage I tumors [MamD 69% stage I vs. PtD 31%, p < .001]. Rate of distant recurrence was 11% among PtD BC cases (n = 289) vs. 3% of MamD (n = 133) (p < .001). Order of factor entry into the distant recurrence time interval (DDFI) model was 1) TNM stage (p < .001), 2) HR/HER2 status (p < .001), 3) histologic grade (p = .005) and 4) detection method (p < .001). Unadjusted PtD DDFI mean time was 4.34 years and MamD 5.52 years (p < .001), however when stratified by stage, the most significant factor relative to distant recurrence, there was no significant difference between PtD and MamD BC. Distant disease specific survival time did not differ by detection method. CONCLUSION: We observed breast cancer distant disease-free interval to be primarily associated with stage at diagnosis and tumor characteristics with less contribution of detection method to the full model. Patient and mammography detected breast cancer mean lead time to distant recurrence differed significantly by detection method for all stages but not significantly within stage with no difference in time from distant recurrence to death. Lead time difference related to detection method appears to be present but may be less influential than other factors in distant disease-free and disease specific survival. BioMed Central 2020-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7678288/ /pubmed/33218313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07609-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kaplan, Henry G.
Malmgren, Judith A.
Atwood, Mary K.
Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title_full Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title_fullStr Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title_full_unstemmed Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title_short Breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
title_sort breast cancer distant recurrence lead time interval by detection method in an institutional cohort
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7678288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33218313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07609-3
work_keys_str_mv AT kaplanhenryg breastcancerdistantrecurrenceleadtimeintervalbydetectionmethodinaninstitutionalcohort
AT malmgrenjuditha breastcancerdistantrecurrenceleadtimeintervalbydetectionmethodinaninstitutionalcohort
AT atwoodmaryk breastcancerdistantrecurrenceleadtimeintervalbydetectionmethodinaninstitutionalcohort