Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hazard of recurrence and adjuvant treatment effects over time in lymph node-negative breast cancer

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background For patients with axillary lymph node-negative breast cancer, benefits from adjuvant therapy are smaller than in node-positive disease and thus more selective use is warranted, prompting development of risk profiling to identify those most likely to benefit. Examination of the magnitude and changes in the hazard of failure over time in node-negative breast cancer may also be informative in this regard. Methods Among 9,444 participants from five randomized trials (accrual 1982–1998) investigating chemotherapy and tamoxifen for node-negative breast cancer, we estimated recurrence hazards over time by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status and adjuvant treatment. Results In patients treated by surgery only, we observed the previously noted larger hazard peak followed by a rapid decrease in ER-negative patients and smaller but more persistent hazard in ER-positive patients. After approximately 48 months, the ER-positive hazard is greater. For adjuvant treatment, while tamoxifen decreases the early hazard in ER-positive patients to that of the chemotherapy-treated ER-negative group, in later follow-up (beyond 5 years) the hazard for ER-positive patients again exceeds that of ER-negative patients. Adding chemotherapy to tamoxifen in ER-positive patients results in large early hazard reduction, but in later follow-up the hazard converges with those of patients treated by surgery only or tamoxifen. Conclusions Recurrence hazards over time reveal changes in risk that may have biologic and therapeutic strategy relevance. In ER-negative tumors, a large early chemotherapy benefit is followed by a consistently low recurrence hazard over time. In ER-positive patients, the chemotherapy benefit appears concentrated mostly in earlier follow-up, and a greater recurrence risk remains.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel (2001) National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 30:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  2. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival. Lancet 365:1687–1717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726–3734

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Robbins GF, Berg J (1977) Curability of patients with invasive breast carcinoma based on a 30-year study. World J Surg 1:284–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Karrison T, Ferguson D, Meier P (1999) Dormancy of mammary carcinoma after mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:80–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Saphner T, Tormey D, Gray R (1996) Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 14:2738–2746

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA et al (1998) Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:227–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hess K, Pusztai L, Buzdar A et al (2003) Estrogen receptors and distinct patterns of breast cancer relapse. Breast Cancer Res Treat 78:105–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson WF, Chen RE, Jatoi I et al (2006) Effect of estrogen receptor expression and histopathology on annual hazard rates of death from breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:121–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher B, Jeong J-H, Anderson S et al (2004) Treatment of axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: updated findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1823–1831

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher B, Jeong J-H, Bryant J et al (2004) Treatment of lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trials. Lancet 364:858–868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher B, Redmond C, Dimitrov NV et al (1989) A randomized clinical trial evaluating sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors. N Engl J Med 320:473–478

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP et al (1996) Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 14:1982–1992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E et al (2001) Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol 19:931–942

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C et al (1989) A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor positive tumors. N Engl J Med 320:479–484

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J et al (1996) Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen for lymph node-negative breast cancer: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-14 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1529–1542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher B, Dignam JJ, Wolmark N et al (1997) Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1673–1682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B 34:187–220

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV et al (1978) The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sargent D (1997) A flexible approach to time-varying coefficients in the Cox regression setting. Lifetime Data Anal 3:13–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gray RJ (1992) Flexible methods for analyzing survival data using splines, with applications to breast cancer prognosis. J Am Stat Assoc 87:942–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hess KR (1994) Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in proportional hazards regression models using cubic spline functions. Stat Med 13:1045–1062

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grambsch PM, Therneau TM, Fleming TR (1995) Diagnostic plots to reveal functional form for covariates in multiplicative intensity models. Biometrics 51:1469–1482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Müller HG, Wang JL (1994) Hazard rates estimation under random censoring with varying kernels and bandwidths. Biometrics 50:61–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hess KR, Serachitopol DM, Brown BW (1999) Hazard function estimators: a simulation study. Stat Med 18:3075–3088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 295:1658–1667

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cardoso F, Van’t Veer L, Rutgers E et al (2008) Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:729–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bryant J, Fisher B, Gündüz N et al (1998) S-phase fraction combined with other patient and tumor characteristics for the prognosis of node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 51:239–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2005) Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA. 17. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1262–1271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pater JL et al (2008) Late extended adjuvant treatment with letrozole improves outcome in women with early-stage breast cancer who complete 5 years of tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol 26:1948–1955

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mamounas EP, Jeong JH, Wickerham DL et al (2008) Benefit from exemestane as extended adjuvant therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen: intention-to-treat analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-33 trial. J Clin Oncol 26:1965–1971

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lin NU, Winer EP (2008) Advances in adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 26:798–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Aalen O, Gjessing H (2001) Understanding the shape of the hazard rate: a process point of view. Stat Sci 16:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  36. Singpurwulla N (2006) The hazard potential: introduction and overview. J Am Stat Assoc 101:1705–1717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lawless J (1982) Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Berry D (2005) Breast cancer heterogeneity may explain peaks in recurrence. Int J Surg 3:287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dignam JJ, Dukic V (2008) Comment on: Yin W Di G, Zhou L et al. Time-varying patterns of recurrence risk for Chinese breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat Jun 21 (Epub ahead of print)

  40. Demicheli R, Abbattista A, Miceli R et al (1996) Time distribution of the recurrence risk for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy: further support about the concept of tumor dormancy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 41:177–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Demicheli R, Valagussa P, Bonadonna G (2001) Does surgery modify growth kinetics of breast cancer micrometastases? Br J Cancer 85:490–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Baum M, Cuzick J, Howell A et al (2005) An exploration of relapse data by hazard rate as a means of developing biological insights into the natural history and treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 ASCO annual meeting proceedings, vol 23, No. 16S (June 1 Supplement), p 612

  43. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jeong JH, Jung SH, Wieand S (2003) A parametric model for long-term follow-up data from phase III breast cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 22:339–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dukic V, Dignam J (2007) Bayesian hierarchical multiresolution model for the study of time-dependent patterns of failure in early stage breast cancer. Bayesian Anal 2:591–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by a grant from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation (JJD, VMD) and Public Health Service grants NCI-U10-CA-12027, NCI-U10-CA-69651, NCI-U10-CA-69974, NCI-U10-CA-12027, and NCI P30-CA-14599 from the US National Cancer Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Studies, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, MC 2007, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    James J. Dignam & Vanja Dukic

  2. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Biostatistical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    James J. Dignam & Stewart J. Anderson

  3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Stewart J. Anderson

  4. NSABP Operation Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Eleftherios P. Mamounas, D. Lawrence Wickerham & Norman Wolmark

  5. Altman Cancer Center, Canton, OH, USA

    Eleftherios P. Mamounas

  6. Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    D. Lawrence Wickerham & Norman Wolmark

Authors
  1. James J. Dignam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanja Dukic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stewart J. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eleftherios P. Mamounas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Lawrence Wickerham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Norman Wolmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Dignam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dignam, J.J., Dukic, V., Anderson, S.J. et al. Hazard of recurrence and adjuvant treatment effects over time in lymph node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116, 595–602 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0200-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0200-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation