Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Management of Breast Cancer in 2010–2011 SEER Registries by Hormone and HER2 Receptor Status

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although locoregional recurrence is known to affect overall survival for operable breast cancer, the impact of receptor status on locoregional control is debated. Currently, hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status are generally not considered relevant to surgical choice. This study examines recent population-level surgical trends with regard to receptor status.

Methods

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data to identify stage I–III female breast cancers diagnosed from 2010 to 2011. Patients were categorized by HR and HER2 receptor status. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess factors associated with undergoing mastectomy and the choice of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM).

Results

The overall mastectomy rate for the 87,504 women diagnosed in 2010–2011 was 43.4 %. On multivariate analysis, the odds of receiving mastectomy was greater for HER2-positive disease with either HR-negative or HR-positive status, than for women with HER2-negative/HR-positive disease (odds ratio 1.73 and 1. 31, respectively; all p values <0.001). Age, stage, marital status, race, and year of diagnosis also correlated with mastectomy. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) was associated with CPM, while HER2 status was not. The mastectomy rate, which increased overall from 2006 to 2010, has continued to increase for stage III disease but has decreased for stage I disease. Mastectomy rates overall were lower in 2011 than 2010 (p = 0.012).

Conclusions

HER2-positive disease and TNBC were independent predictors of more extensive surgery in this large, recent, population-based cohort. Although mastectomy rates have continued to increase for stage III disease, mastectomy rates overall were lower in 2011 than in previous years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lichter AS, Lippman ME, Danforth DN Jr, et al. Mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy in the treatment of stage I and II carcinoma of the breast: a randomized trial at the National Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:976–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:907–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial. Cancer. 2003;98:697–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1143–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, Contesso G. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1558–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lowery AJ, Kell MR, Glynn RW, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ. Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:831–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Darby S, McGale P, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:1707–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mazouni C, Rimareix F, Mathieu MC, et al. Outcome in breast molecular subtypes according to nodal status and surgical procedures. Am J Surg. 2013;205:662–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2011. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/. Accessed April 2014.

  12. Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M, et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Li T, Nicolaou N. Locoregional recurrence of triple-negative breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Cancer. 2009;115:946–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5652–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Kennecke H. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1684–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arvold ND, Taghian AG, Niemierko A, et al. Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3885–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gangi A, Chung A, Mirocha J, Liou DZ, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Breast-conserving therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:252–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1673–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zumsteg ZS, Morrow M, Arnold B, et al. Breast-conserving therapy achieves locoregional outcomes comparable to mastectomy in women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adkins FC, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer is not a contraindication for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3164–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507-1515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones T, Neboori H, Wu H, et al. Are breast cancer subtypes prognostic for nodal involvement and associated with clinicopathologic features at presentation in early-stage breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2866–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7; quiz 294-185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Xia C, Schroeder MC, Weigel RJ, Sugg SL, Thomas A. Rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is influenced by preoperative MRI recommendations. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:4133–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wiechmann L, Sampson M, Stempel M, et al. Presenting features of breast cancer differ by molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2705–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ustaalioglu BO, Bilici A, Kefeli U, et al. The importance of multifocal/multicentric tumor on the disease-free survival of breast cancer patients: single center experience. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35:580–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lokich E, Stuckey A, Raker C, Wilbur JS, Laprise J, Gass J. Preoperative genetic testing affects surgical decision making in breast cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:326–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf, 2014. Accessed January 2015.

  30. Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, et al. Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1482–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Habermann EB, Abbott A, Parsons HM, Virnig BA, Al-Refaie WB, Tuttle TM. Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3437–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2682–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Heil J, et al. Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: a report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1947–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

All authors report no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Ingrid Lizarraga MBBS & Ronald J. Weigel MD, PhD

  2. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Mary C. Schroeder PhD

  3. Division of Hematology, Oncology and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Alexandra Thomas MD

Authors
  1. Ingrid Lizarraga MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary C. Schroeder PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald J. Weigel MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandra Thomas MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Thomas MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lizarraga, I., Schroeder, M.C., Weigel, R.J. et al. Surgical Management of Breast Cancer in 2010–2011 SEER Registries by Hormone and HER2 Receptor Status. Ann Surg Oncol 22 (Suppl 3), 566–572 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4591-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4591-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation