The Impact of Facility Volume/Size on Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcome

2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 1333-1337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Sariego

Recent studies have suggested that outcomes and survival from breast cancer are improved when definitive treatment is rendered at high-volume and/or teaching centers. Consolidation of such cases in tertiary centers, however, is often impractical and impossible. Patients often desire primary treatment of their breast cancer in their own communities. The current study was undertaken to examine the impact of treatment facility type on the treatment performed as well as on overall survival. Breast cancer treatment and survival data were available from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base. Only patients in whom no previous treatment had been rendered were included in the analysis. Data were stratified with regard to type and size of treatment facility/hospital; stage distribution; initial treatment performed; and 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival. A total of 665,409 patients were included in the current analysis. There were no significant differences in stage distribution between facility types nor was there a significant difference in the treatment performed (although there was a slight trend toward breast conservation at the larger centers). This was true overall and for each stage of cohort. There were also no significant differences in 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates overall and at any stage (although again, there was a slight trend toward a minimal survival advantage at the larger centers). There was no significant impact of facility size or type on either breast cancer treatment performed or overall survival. There was no evidence that more “advanced” treatments were offered at larger centers nor was there evidence of improved outcome/survival at larger centers. Care can be rendered safely, efficiently, and effectively in the community setting.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads G. Jørgensen ◽  
Navid M. Toyserkani ◽  
Frederik G. Hansen ◽  
Anette Bygum ◽  
Jens A. Sørensen

AbstractThe impact of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) on long-term quality of life is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of BCRL on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) up to 10 years after breast cancer treatment. This regional population-based study enrolled patients treated for breast cancer with axillary lymph node dissection between January 1st 2007 and December 31th 2017. Follow up and assessments of the included patients were conducted between January 2019 and May 2020. The study outcome was HRQoL, evaluated with the Lymphedema Functioning, Disability and Health Questionnaire, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire and the Short Form (36) Health Survey Questionnaire. Multivariate linear logistic regression models adjusted for confounders provided mean score differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals in each HRQoL scale and item. This study enrolled 244 patients with BCRL and 823 patients without BCRL. Patients with BCRL had significantly poorer HRQoL than patients without BCRL in 16 out of 18 HRQoL subscales, for example, in physical function (MDs 27, 95%CI: 24; 30), mental health (MDs 24, 95%CI: 21; 27) and social role functioning (MDs 20, 95%CI: 17; 23). Age, BMI, BCRL severity, hand and dominant arm affection had only minor impact on HRQoL (MDs < 5), suggesting a high degree of inter-individual variation in coping with lymphedema. This study showed that BCRL is associated with long-term impairments in HRQoL, especially affecting the physical and psychosocial domains. Surprisingly, BCRL diagnosis rather than clinical severity drove the largest impairments in HRQoL.


BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidemarie Haller ◽  
Petra Voiß ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Anna Paul ◽  
Mattea Reinisch ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cancer registries usually assess data of conventional treatments and/or patient survival. Beyond that, little is known about the influence of other predictors of treatment response related to the use of complementary therapies (CM) and lifestyle factors affecting patients’ quality and quantity of life. Methods INTREST is a prospective cohort study collecting register data at multiple German certified cancer centers, which provide individualized, integrative, in- and outpatient breast cancer care. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical cancer data of anticipated N = 715 women with pTNM stage I-III breast cancer are collected using standardized case report forms at the time of diagnosis, after completing neo−/adjuvant chemotherapy, after completing adjuvant therapy (with the exception of endocrine therapy) as well as 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after baseline. Endpoints for multivariable prediction models are quality of life, fatigue, treatment adherence, and progression-based outcomes/survival. Predictors include the study center, sociodemographic characteristics, histologic cancer and comorbidity data, performance status, stress perception, depression, anxiety, sleep quality, spirituality, social support, physical activity, diet behavior, type of conventional treatments, use of and belief in CM treatments, and participation in a clinical trial. Safety is recorded following the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Discussion This trial is currently recruiting participants. Future analyses will allow to identify predictors of short- and long-term response to integrative breast cancer treatment in women, which, in turn, may improve cancer care as well as quality and quantity of life with cancer. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014852. Retrospectively registered at July 4th, 2018.


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 627-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzana Sales De Aguiar ◽  
Anke Bergmann ◽  
Inês Echenique Mattos

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (6) ◽  
pp. 429-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariacarla Valli ◽  
Simona Cima ◽  
Paola Fanti ◽  
Barbara Muoio ◽  
Alessandra Vanetti ◽  
...  

Objective: To analyze the impact of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) on ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) and overall survival (OS) in patients older than 69 years with early-stage breast cancer. Methods: From January 2007 to June 2015, we analyzed retrospectively 137 women with estrogen receptor–positive T1–2 invasive breast cancer, with negative axillary lymph nodes, dividing them into 2 subgroups: 70 to 79 years and older than 79 years. Results: After a median follow-up of 43.2 months, the 3-year IBR-free survival in patients treated with surgery plus RT was 98.8% and 92.1% in patients treated with surgery alone, with a significant difference ( p = .01). Radiotherapy did not impact overall survival ( p = .10). A higher percentage of patients aged between 70 and 79 years received RT after conservative surgery if compared with the older subgroup ( p < .01). Conclusions: In elderly women, adjuvant RT reduced the IBR, but did not improve OS.


1994 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. S41 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Hammer ◽  
C. Track ◽  
B. Pakisch ◽  
D.H. Seewald ◽  
J.P. Zoidl ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Upendra Yadav ◽  
Pradeep Kumar ◽  
Vandana Rai

AbstractWorldwide breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death in women. Paclitaxel is an effective drug used for the treatment of breast cancer but it has many side effects. Nab-paclitaxel (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) is an FDA approved drug for the treatment of breast cancer. Currently many clinical trials are conducted to deliver nab-paclitaxel into the tumor cells. But the efficacy and safety of this nab-paclitaxel over conventional paclitaxel still remains questionable. So, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in breast cancer treatment.Electronic databases were searched for the suitable studies using key terms “nab-paclitaxel”, “paclitaxel”, and “clinical trial” with the combination of “breast cancer” up to August 11, 2019. Risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed by the Open Meta-Analyst program. A total of eight studies which fulfilled our criteria were included in this study. For efficacy we retrieved data of 12 months progression free survival, 24 months progression free survival, and overall survival (up to 3 years) and for the safety we took data of nausea, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, diarrhea and pain.We did not found any difference in efficacy of nab-paclitaxel over paclitaxel (12 months progression free survival-RRFE= 0.86, 95%CI= 0.77-0.97, p= 0.02, I2= 25.07%; 24 months progression free survival-RRFE= 0.86, 95% CI= 0.64-1.16, p= 0.34, I2= 0%; and 3 years survival-RRFE= 1.20, 95%CI= 0.92-1.56, p= 0.16, I2= 37.55%). The meta-analysis of studies used nab-paclitaxel showed reduced adverse effect of anemia (ORFE= 1.66, 95% CI= 1.26-2.19; p= <0.001; I2= 0%) and leukopenia (ORFE= 1.37; 95%CI= 1.06-1.75; p= 0.01; I2= 48.63%). However, in case of other adverse effects no significant association was found with nab-paclitaxel (nausea-ORFE=1.15, 95%CI= 0.94-1.41, p= 0.15, I2= 50.12%; neutropenia-ORRE= 0.75, 95%CI= 0.30-1.87, p= 0.54, I2= 94.45%; fatigue-ORRE= 1.11, 95%CI= 0.77-1.62, p= 0.55, I2= 56.02; diarrhea-ORFE= 1.11, 95%CI= 0.77-1.62, p= 0.55; I2= 34.26; pain-ORRE= 1.15, 95%CI= 0.78-1.69, p= 0.45, I2= 52.96%).In conclusion the use of nab-paclitaxel has reduces the side effects of anemia and leukopenia in breast cancer treatment in comparison to paclitaxel but nab-paclitaxel has no effect on the overall survival of the patients.


Breast Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Balic ◽  
Christoph Thomssen ◽  
Rachel Würstlein ◽  
Michael Gnant ◽  
Nadia Harbeck

This year, the St. Gallen Consensus Conference on early breast cancer treatment standards took place for the third time in Vienna, Austria, which is where the next conference will also take place (next date: March 17–20, 2021!). Once again, more than 3,000 participants from over 100 countries came together, and, overall, the 2019 St. Gallen/Vienna conference was a great success. After 3 days of reviews conducted by a global faculty concerning the most important evidence published in the last 2 years, the Consensus votes’ challenge was to define the impact on routine everyday practice. This year, the conference’s main theme was the optimization of early breast cancer therapies by assessment of the magnitude of benefit, aiming at further refinement when compared to de-escalation and escalation, which were mainly the topic of the 2017 conference. Patient empowerment and the importance of shared decision-making were particularly emphasized. The traditional panel votes were moderated by Eric Winer from Harvard, and for the most part, they managed to clarify most of the critical questions. This brief report by Editors of Breast Care summarizes the results of the 2019 international panel votes with respect to locoregional and systemic treatment as a quick news update for our readers, but it expressly does not intend to replace the official St. Gallen Consensus publication that will follow shortly in Annals of Oncology.


EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Schenker ◽  
N Hashiguchi ◽  
T Maurer ◽  
C Lemes ◽  
L Rottner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia and catheter ablation a viable treatment option for patients with AF. Extensive left atrial (LA) scars, frequently seen in patients with persistent AF, can limit its efficacy. Radiation for breast cancer treatment is known to have serious long-term effects (e.g. fibrosis) on the targeted tissue. At the same time, chemotherapy often leads to organ dysfunction. We sought to examine the effects of radiation and chemotherapy on the electroanatomic features of the LA in patients who received catheter ablation for left atrial arrhythmias with prior breast cancer treatment. Methods and Results We compared 38 patients (mean age 68.4 ± 7.1 years) who underwent catheter ablation for LA arrhythmia and had a previous diagnosis of breast cancer with 38 patients (mean age 65.4 ± 7.3 years) without breast cancer who formed our control group. LA scar area, as well as its distribution was measured during the electrophysiology (EP) study and graded according to the Utah classification. The existence of LA scarring did not differ significantly between both groups (71.1% vs. 76.3%, p = 0.602). LA scar area (excluding PVs) was 107.5cm2 ± 19.0cm2 in the breast cancer group compared to 110.1cm2 ± 18.5cm2 in the control group (p = 0.536). The distribution of the scar area revealed no significant difference between both groups, however an involvement of the anterior wall was common (65.8% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.454). We further investigated whether the location of breast cancer had an impact on the LA scar development of the patients in our study cohort. Here, we found no significant difference in the amount of LA scarring when comparing patients with left-sided breast cancer to patients with right-sided breast cancer (66.7% vs. 73.9%). In a sub-analysis patients with breast cancer and persistent AF showed a non-significant trend towards greater LA scar areas (17.4cm2 vs. 6.8cm2) in comparison to patients of the control group with similar LA volumes. The patient’s age (&gt;65 years) was the only independent predictor for greater LA scarring we could identify. Neither former radiotherapy, nor chemotherapy showed a positive correlation with greater LA scarring. Conclusion There is no change in the distribution as well as an increase of the extent of LA scars after thoracic irradiation and/or chemotherapy. A trend towards greater LA scar areas was seen in patients with breast cancer and persistent AF. The patient’s age was identified as an independent predictor for LA scar development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document