Abstract
Purpose
In 2004, The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines incorporated omission of radiation therapy after breast-conservation surgery in women ≥70 years old with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who plan to receive endocrine therapy. One study demonstrated wide variation in implementing this change across 13 NCCN institutions. We evaluated the practice pattern at our institution.
Methods
We identified women ≥70 years old treated at our institution from 2009 to 2014. We calculated radiation therapy omission rate in those meeting the guidelines. We explored associations between radiation therapy omission, year of diagnosis, and patient characteristics with Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Fisher’s exact tests.
Results
A total of 667 women met the inclusion criteria, and 117 (18 %) were candidates for radiation therapy omission. Mean age among the 117 was 76.3 years (Range: 70–95). Overall radiation therapy omission rate was 36.8 %, but varied greatly by year of diagnosis (Range: 7.7–54.5 %). This variation persisted after excluding women who did not receive endocrine therapy (Mean: 39.0 %, Range: 0.0–75.0 %). Factors associated with higher radiation therapy omission rates included older age and not having pathological nodal evaluation. The radiation therapy omission rate did not vary by race, tumor type, grade, or size.
Conclusions
The implementation of the NCCN guideline has not been consistent at our institution. Our data suggest that other tools should be considered to apply the guidelines more consistently. We have implemented a quality improvement protocol that incorporates life expectancy estimate and geriatric assessment in women meeting the NCCN guideline at our institution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H (2014) An aging nation: the older population in the United States, current population reports. Census Bureau, Washington DC, pp 25–1140
Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al (2015) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2012, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2012/, based on Nov 2014 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, Accessed Apr 2015
Hughes K, Schnaper L, Berry D et al (2004) Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. New Engl J Medicine 351:971–977
Hughes K, Schnaper L, Bellon J et al (2013) Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol 31:2382–2387
NCCN guidelines website (2014). Available from http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast
McCormick B, Ottesen R, Hughes M et al (2014) Impact of guideline changes on use or omission of radiation in the elderly with early breast cancer: practice patterns at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Institutions. J Am Coll Surg 219:796–802
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. New Engl J Medicine 437:1233–1241
Lee SJ, Lindquist K, Segal MR et al (2006) Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA 295:801–808
Schonberg MA, Davis RB, McCarthy EP et al (2011) Index to predict 5-year mortality of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older using data from the National Health Interview Survey. J Gen Intern Med 24:1115–1122
Schonberg MA, Davis RB, McCarthy EP et al (2011) External validation of an index to predict up to 9-year mortality of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:1444–1451
Cruz M, Covinsky K, Widera EW et al (2013) Predicting 10-year mortality for older adults. JAMA 309:874–876
Min L, Yoon W, Mariano J et al (2009) The vulnerable elders-13 survey predicts 5-year functional decline and mortality outcomes in older ambulatory care patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 57:2070–2076
Luciani A, Ascione G, Bertuzzi C et al (2014) Detecting disabilities in older patients with cancer: comparison between comprehensive geriatric assessment and vulnerable elders survey-13. J Clin Oncol 28:2046–2050
Soulos PR, Yu JB, Roberts KB et al (2012) Assessing the impact of a cooperative group trial on breast cancer care in the medicare population. J Clin Oncol 30:1601–1607
Rutter C, Lester-Coll N, Mancini B et al (2015) The evolving role of adjuvant radiotherapy for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer. Cancer 121:2331–2340
Chu Q, Medeiros K, Zhou M et al (2015) Impact of cooperative trial and sociodemographic variation on adjuvant radiation therapy usage in elderly women (>70 years) with stage 1, estrogen receptor positive breast cancer: analysis of the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.12.018
Acknowledgments
Funding
This study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, Grant P30 CA06973 (VS), and by a Center of Excellence Award from the Avon Foundation for Women (VS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
VS received research grant support from Abbvie, Celgene, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and PUMA. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This was a retrospective study that was approved by the Johns Hopkins Hospital Institutional Review Board. Given the nature of the study, a consent was not required.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pollock, Y.G., Blackford, A.L., Jeter, S.C. et al. Adjuvant radiation use in older women with early-stage breast cancer at Johns Hopkins. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160, 291–296 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4005-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4005-7