National trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with locally advanced breast cancer

Are There Disparities in Breast Reconstruction After Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Despite national guidelines against contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in low- to moderate-risk breast cancer, CPM use continues to rise. Breast reconstruction improves health-related quality of life and satisfaction among women undergoing mastectomy. Given the lack of data regarding factors associated with reconstruction after CPM and the known benefits of reconstruction, we sought to investigate whether disparities exist in receipt of reconstruction after CPM.

METHODS

The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent unilateral mastectomy with CPM. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent planned reconstruction at any timepoint and those who did not. A secondary analysis comparing types of reconstruction (tissue, implant, combined) was conducted. Patient, tumor, and demographic characteristics were analyzed using chi-square test and odds ratios were calculated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1,73,249 women: 95,818 (55.3%) underwent reconstruction and 77,431 (45.7%) did not. Both the rate CPM and the proportion of women undergoing reconstruction after CPM increased between 2004 and 2017. Of the women who had reconstruction, 40,840 (51.7%) received implants, 29,807 (37.7%) had tissue, and 8352 (10.6%) had combined reconstruction. After adjusted analysis, factors associated with reconstruction were young age, Hispanic ethnicity, private insurance, and living in an area with the highest education and median income (P < 0.01). Patients who underwent reconstruction were less likely to have radiation (P < 0.01) and chemotherapy (P < 0.01), more likely to have stage I disease (P < 0.01), and to be treated at an integrated cancer center (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction after CPM is disproportionately received by younger women, Hispanics, those with private insurance, and higher socioeconomic status and education. While the rate of reconstruction after CPM is increasing, there remain significant disparities. Conscious efforts must be made to eliminate these disparities, especially given the known benefits of reconstruction after mastectomy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Weighing the risks of delayed chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy

BACKGROUND

Many patients with unilateral breast cancer opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of therapeutic mastectomy (immediate CPM) or following completion of adjuvant therapy. Studies show that immediate CPM increases the risk of surgical complications related to unilateral mastectomy (UM) alone, which may lead to delays in adjuvant therapy initiation. However, it is unclear if these complications cause clinically significant delays in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with breast cancer who underwent immediate CPM versus UM alone at Columbia University Medical Center from January 2000 to December 2020. Patient demographic and oncologic characteristics; complications; and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or hormonal therapy relative to therapeutic mastectomy were collected.

RESULTS

In this study, 239 UM alone patients were propensity score matched to 239 immediate CPM patients. No significant difference in complication rates was found between the index and contralateral breasts in CPM patients. A similar percentage of CPM and UM patients experienced postoperative complications (19% vs. 17%, p = 0.64). No significant difference in time to adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy was found between CPM patients with complications and all CPM patients or all UM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of clear guidance for clinical decision-making regarding timing of CPM relative to adjuvant therapy. Our study suggests that immediate CPM does not significantly increase the risks of postoperative complications or complication-related delays in the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy. This information may help patients and providers to plan, select, and schedule breast cancer treatment options.

Silicone Shell Breast Implants in Patients Undergoing Risk-Reducing Mastectomy With a History of Breast-Conserving Surgery and Adjuvant Radiotherapy: A Long-term Study

BACKGROUND

Indications for breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy (BCSAR) in patients with breast carcinoma are increasing, as are indications for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) in healthy subjects. Most of these cases are reconstructed with silicone shell breast implants (SSBIs).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to study complications of SSBIs in breast reconstruction in patients undergoing RRM with previous BCSAR.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was designed. The study group included cases of RRM reconstructed with SSBI in patients who had previously undergone BCSAR in the same breast. The control group consisted of patients with high-risk breast cancer who had undergone RRM and immediate SSBI reconstruction without previous BCSAR.

RESULTS

There was a history of BCSAR in 15.8% of cases. The first SSBI used in immediate reconstruction after RRM was replaced in 51.5% of cases with a mean [standard deviation] survival of 24.04 [28.48] months. BCSAR was significantly associated with pathological capsular contracture (P = .00) with this first SSBI (37.5% vs 5.9%). Of the cases requiring the replacement of the first SSBI, 44.23% suffered failure of the second SSBI, with a mean survival of 27.95 [26.53] months. No significant association was found between the consecutive development of capsular contracture in the second SSBI and a previous history of BCSAR (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

BCSAR prior to RRM reconstructed with an SSBI is associated with a significant increase in pathological capsular contracture. Patients should be warned of the high rate of SSBI complications and reconstruction failure. Polyurethane-coated implants may provide an alternative in cases in which alloplastic reconstruction is considered in patients with previous BCSAR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Does a brief surgeon training in negotiation theory principles decrease rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy?

PURPOSE

Despite the lack of any oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use among women with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. This patient-driven trend is influenced by fear of recurrence and desire for peace of mind. Traditional educational strategies have been ineffective in reducing CPM rates. Here we employ training in negotiation theory strategies for counseling and determine the effect on CPM rates.

METHODS

In consecutive patients with unilateral breast cancer treated with mastectomy from 05/2017 to 12/2019, we examined CPM rates before and after a brief surgeon training in negotiation skills. This comprised a systematic framework for patient counseling utilizing early setting of the default option, leveraging social proof, and framing.

RESULTS

Among 2144 patients, 925 (43%) were treated pre-training and 744 (35%) post-training. Those treated in the 6-month transition period were excluded (n = 475, 22%). Median patient age was 50 years; most patients had T1-T2 (72%), N0 (73%), and estrogen receptor-positive (80%) tumors of ductal histology (72%). The CPM rate was 47% pre-training versus 48% post-training, with an adjusted difference of -3.7% (95% CI -9.4 to 2.1, p = 0.2). In a standardized self-assessment survey, all 15 surgeons reported a high baseline use of negotiation skills and no significant change in conversational difficulty with the structured approach.

CONCLUSION

Brief surgeon training did not affect self-reported use of negotiation skills or reduce CPM rates. The choice of CPM is a highly individual decision influenced by patient values and decision styles. Further research to identify effective strategies to minimize surgical overtreatment with CPM is needed.

Breast Cancer Statistics, 2022

This article is the American Cancer Society's update on female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including population-based data on incidence, mortality, survival, and mammography screening. Breast cancer incidence rates have risen in most of the past four decades; during the most recent data years (2010-2019), the rate increased by 0.5% annually, largely driven by localized-stage and hormone receptor-positive disease. In contrast, breast cancer mortality rates have declined steadily since their peak in 1989, albeit at a slower pace in recent years (1.3% annually from 2011 to 2020) than in the previous decade (1.9% annually from 2002 to 2011). In total, the death rate dropped by 43% during 1989-2020, translating to 460,000 fewer breast cancer deaths during that time. The death rate declined similarly for women of all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians/Alaska Natives, among whom the rates were stable. However, despite a lower incidence rate in Black versus White women (127.8 vs. 133.7 per 100,000), the racial disparity in breast cancer mortality remained unwavering, with the death rate 40% higher in Black women overall (27.6 vs. 19.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2016-2020) and two-fold higher among adult women younger than 50 years (12.1 vs. 6.5 deaths per 100,000). Black women have the lowest 5-year relative survival of any racial/ethnic group for every molecular subtype and stage of disease (except stage I), with the largest Black-White gaps in absolute terms for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease (88% vs. 96%), hormone receptor-negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive disease (78% vs. 86%), and stage III disease (64% vs. 77%). Progress against breast cancer mortality could be accelerated by mitigating racial disparities through increased access to high-quality screening and treatment via nationwide Medicaid expansion and partnerships between community stakeholders, advocacy organizations, and health systems.

Prophylactic mastectomy and occult malignancy: Surgical and imaging considerations

BACKGROUND

Sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) is not routinely recommended for patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy (PM), yet omission remains a subject of debate among surgeons. A modern patient cohort was examined to determine occult malignancy (OM) incidence within PM specimens to reinforce current recommendations.

METHODS

All PM performed over a 5-year period were retrospectively identified, including women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent synchronous or delayed contralateral PM or women with elevated cancer risk who underwent bilateral PM.

RESULTS

The study population included 772 patients (598 CPM, 174 BPM) with a total of 39 OM identified: 17 invasive cancers (14 CPM, 3 BPM) and 22 DCIS (19 CPM, 3 BPM). Of the 86 patients for whom SLNB was selectively performed, 1 micrometastasis was identified. In the CPM cohort, risk of OM increased with age, presence of LCIS of either breast, or presence of a non-BRCA high-penetrance gene mutation, while preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was associated with lower likelihood of OM.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the low incidence of invasive OM in this updated series, routine SLNB is of low value for patients undergoing PM. For patients with indeterminate radiographic findings, discordant preoperative biopsies, LCIS, or non-BRCA high-penetrance gene mutations, selective SLNB implementation could be considered.

Complications Associated with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

No prior systematic review and meta-analysis has aimed to answer the frequently-studied question: does a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) increase complication risk for unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy (UM)?

METHODS

A February 2021 search for studies on complications of UM+CPM identified 15 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted to compare complications of 1) diseased versus CPM breasts for UM+CPM patients and 2) patients undergoing UM+CPM versus UM alone when grouped by their different reconstructive methods. Outcomes included incidence of any complication and any severe complication requiring re-operation, re-admission, or delay in adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

For all UM+CPM patients, the diseased breast was slightly more prone to complications versus the CPM breast (RR:1.24, CI:1.02-1.51). In studies that stratified by reconstructive method, incidence of complications was higher for UM+CPM versus UM alone for patients with no reconstruction (RR:2.03, CI:1.38-2.98), prosthetic-based reconstruction (RR:1.42, CI:1.13-1.80), and autologous reconstruction (RR:1.32, CI:1.09-1.61). Similar results were found by the only prospective trial on the topic, which showed the same for more severe complications. Other smaller retrospective studies that did not stratify by reconstructive method showed similar complications for UM+CPM versus UM alone (RR:1.06, CI:0.79-1.42). These groups had similar incidences of complication-related delay in adjuvant therapy, as demonstrated by one study.

CONCLUSIONS

After UM+CPM, CPM breasts incur only slightly fewer complications. Stronger evidence supports more complications for UM+CPM than UM alone, although some studies report no difference. More work is needed to determine the effect of complications on timing of adjuvant therapy.

Breast conserving therapy for central breast cancer in the United States

Introduction

Although central breast cancer is not a contraindication to breast conserving, most surgeons still choose to perform total mastectomy. The safety of breast conserving treatment for central breast cancer is still unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term survival outcome of central breast cancer.

Materials and methods

Using SEER database to explore the trend of surgical procedures for patients with central breast cancer. The patients were divided into breast conserving group and non-breast conserving group. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of breast conserving surgery in central breast cancer. The clinicopathological variables were adjusted through the multivariable Cox risk model, and the stage and T stage were stratified to compare survival results.

Results

A total of 8702 patients with central breast cancer underwent surgical treatment from 2010 to 2015. There were 3870 patients in the breast conserving group and 4832 patients in the non-breast conserving group. The breast preservation rate was 44.4%, which rose from 39.9% in 2010 to 51% in 2015. Elderly patients (p < 0.001) and low tumor malignancy were predictors of breast conserving therapy. In the 1:1 matched case–control analysis, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001) in breast conserving therapy group were still higher than those of non-breast conserving. In the subgroup analysis of T staging and stage, the breast conserving therapy group still had higher OS and BCSS.

Conclusion

In central breast cancer, breast-conserving therapy is safe and optional.

Surgical Decision-Making Surrounding Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Comparison of Treatment Goals, Preferences, and Psychosocial Outcomes from a Multicenter Survey of Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Differences in patient characteristics and decision-making preferences have been described between those who elect breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM), or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer. However, it is not known whether preferred and actual decision-making roles differ across these surgery types, or whether surgery choice reflects a woman's goals or achieves desired outcomes.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer across eight large medical centers responded to a mailed questionnaire regarding treatment decision-making goals, roles, and outcomes. These data were linked to electronic medical records. Differences were assessed using descriptive analyses and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 750 study participants: 60.1% BCS, 17.9% UM, and 22.0% CPM. On multivariate analysis, reducing worry about recurrence was a more important goal for surgery in the CPM group than the others. Although women's preferred role in the treatment decision did not differ by surgery, the CPM group was more likely to report taking a more-active-than-preferred role than the BCS group. On multivariate analysis that included receipt of additional surgery, posttreatment worry about both ipsilateral and contralateral recurrence was higher in the BCS group than the CPM group (both p < 0.001). The UM group was more worried than the CPM group about contralateral recurrence only (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with CPM were more likely to report being able to reduce worry about recurrence as a very important goal for surgery. They were also the least worried about ipsilateral breast recurrence and contralateral breast cancer almost two years postdiagnosis.

Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee

Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.

Understanding Stakeholder Preference for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Conjoint Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing numbers of women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing CPM, quantitative evidence of all stakeholder preferences regarding CPM is lacking, particularly for healthy volunteers. Conjoint analysis, a marketing tool, can be used to quantify tradeoffs surrounding CPM.

STUDY DESIGN

The objective of this study was to quantify preferences for aspects of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) decision-making process among key stakeholders. Healthy volunteers, women with cancer (WwCa), surgical oncologists, and plastic surgeons were surveyed with the same conjoint simulation exercise. Respondents chose between either single (SM) or double (DM) mastectomy under varying recurrence and complication rates, surveillance, and symmetry conditions. Hierarchical Bayesian models calculated partworth utilities and importance scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,244 respondents participated. The top 3 important factors for all stakeholders were surgical complication rates after DM, type of surgery (SM vs DM) independent of other variables, and 10-year future contralateral cancer risk after SM. HV and surgeons placed greatest importance on high rates of surgical complications after DM. WwCa preferred DM, regardless of complication risk or low rates of a 10-year future cancer episode after SM. Surgical oncologists strongly preferred SM and were more accepting of future cancer risk of 3% or 10% than other stakeholders. Symmetry and need for surveillance were least important factors for all stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The threshold of acceptability for future cancer episodes and risk tolerance for complications varies by stakeholder, with a profound influence upon WwCA. Current findings suggest room for improved provider and patient alignment through behavioral techniques, such as framing, meanwhile highlighting changes in risk perception after a breast cancer diagnosis.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Trends in Use and Clinical Outcomes 2004-2016

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines specify against immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) among inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) patients. However, limited data exist regarding this practice. We report practice patterns and oncologic outcomes among nonmetastatic IBC patients receiving trimodality therapy, with or without IBR.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified nonmetastatic IBC patients treated with trimodality therapy from 2004 to 2016. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), assessed on unadjusted analysis using Kaplan-Meier estimates and on adjusted analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards and inverse probability weighting (IPW) models. OS analysis was also conducted with propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts. Secondary outcomes included IBR utilization rates, time to postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

6589 women were included, including 5954 (90.4%) non-reconstructed and 635 (9.6%) IBR. Among IBR recipients, 250 (39.4%) underwent autologous reconstruction, 171 (26.9%) underwent implant-based reconstruction, and 214 (33.7%) unspecified. IBR utilization increased from 6.3% to 10.1% from 2004 to 2016 at a 4% average annual growth rate (P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 43 and 45 months for IBR and non-reconstructed patients, respectively (P = 0.29). On Cox multivariable analysis, IBR was associated with improved OS (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, P = 0.01), but this association was not significant on IPW analysis (P = 0.06). In PSM cohorts, this association remained significant (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.92, P = 0.02). Margin status, time to PMRT, 30-day readmission, and 30-/90-day mortality did not differ between groups (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although not endorsed by national guidelines, IBR is increasing among IBC patients; however, more granular data are needed to determine oncologic safety.

Reconstruction in Women with T4 Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: When Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Despite limited evidence regarding its safety, immediate reconstruction (IR) is increasingly offered to women with T4 breast cancer. We compared outcomes after IR, delayed reconstruction (DR), and no reconstruction (NR) in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for T4 disease.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively identified consecutive women with T4 tumors treated with trimodality therapy from January 2007 through December 2019. Clinicopathologic characteristics, complications requiring reoperation, time to PMRT, and recurrence patterns were compared. The cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Of the 269 women identified, the median (IQR) age was 52 (45-62) years; 164 women (61%) had T4d disease. Forty-five women (17%) had IR, 41 (15%) had DR, and 183 (68%) had NR. IR was independently associated with T4a-c disease (odds ratio [OR], 5.75; 95% CI, 2.57-12.87; p < 0.001) and younger age (OR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94; p < 0.001). The risk of complications after IR was 22% overall and 46% in T4d patients (6/13), compared with 4.4% overall for NR and 7.3% for DR (p < 0.001). IR was associated with >8-week interval to PMRT (p < 0.001). At a median (range) follow-up of 4.2 (0.2-13) years, the median time to first recurrence was 18 months and was similar between groups (p = 0.13). The cumulative incidence of LR was 16% for T4d disease and 2.2% for T4a-c disease (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

After IR, women with T4 tumors, particularly T4d disease, experienced delayed initiation of adjuvant treatment and substantial morbidity, suggesting that an interval of >18 months between mastectomy and reconstruction is advisable.

Breast Reconstruction in Inflammatory Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Predictors, Trends, and Survival from the National Cancer Database

INTRODUCTION

Survival for women diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) has improved with advances in multimodal therapy. This study was performed to evaluate trends, predictors, and survival for reconstruction in IBC patients in the United States.

METHODS

Women who underwent mastectomy with or without reconstruction for IBC between 2004 and 2016 were included from the National Cancer Database. Predictors for undergoing reconstruction and association with overall survival were determined.

RESULTS

Of 12,544 patients with IBC who underwent mastectomy, 1307 underwent reconstruction. Predictors of reconstruction included younger age, private insurance, higher income, performance of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and location within a metropolitan area (P < 0.001). The proportion of women having reconstruction for IBC increased from 7.3% to 12.3% from 2004 to 2016. Median unadjusted overall survival was higher in the reconstructive group l [93.7 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 75.2-117.5] than the nonreconstructive group (68.1 months, 95% CI 65.5-71.7, hazard ratio = 0.79 95% CI 0.72-0.88, P < 0.001). With adjustment for covariates, differences in overall mortality were not significant, with hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-1.06, P = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction rates for IBC are increasing. Women with IBC who undergo reconstruction tend to be younger and are not at the increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to those not having reconstruction. The National Cancer Database does not differentiate immediate from delayed reconstruction. However, the outcomes of immediate reconstruction in carefully selected patients with IBC should be further studied to evaluate its safety. This could impact current guidelines, which are based largely on an expert opinion.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implications for breast reconstruction

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have continued to rise in the United States, impacting all stakeholders including plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Multiple factors may be influencing this trend, including patient decision-making characteristics, knowledge about breast cancer disease and prognosis, advances in genetic testing and enhanced imaging capabilities, sociodemographic factors, and access to specialty surgical services such as breast reconstruction. In this review, the authors shed light on the current state of CPM and summarize the literature analyzing its increasing prevalence in the United States, as well as outline future directions for study and dissemination of knowledge from providers to patients surrounding this important and complex treatment decision.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction

Mastectomy may be performed to treat breast cancer or as a prophylactic approach in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, mastectomies may be performed with or without reconstruction. Reconstruction approaches differ and may be autologous, involving a transfer of tissue (skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle) from other parts of the body to the chest wall. Reconstruction may also involve implants. Implant reconstruction may occur as a single procedure or as multistep procedures with initial use of an adjustable tissue expander allowing the mastectomy tissues to be stretched without compromising blood supply. Ultimately, a full-volume implant will be placed. Reconstructions with a combination of autologous and implant reconstruction may also be performed. Other techniques such as autologous fat grafting may be used to refine both implant and flap-based reconstruction. This review of imaging in the setting of mastectomy with or without reconstruction summarizes the literature and makes recommendations based on available evidence. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Disparities in the enrollment to systemic therapy and survival for patients with multiple myeloma

Background

Disparities driven by socioeconomic factors have been shown to impact outcomes for cancer patients. We sought to explore this relationship among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who were not considered for hematopoietic stem cell transplant in the first-line setting and how it varied over time.

Methods

We queried the National Cancer Database for patients diagnosed with MM between 2004 and 2016 and included only those who received systemic therapy as the first-line treatment. Enrollment rates for therapy were calculated as receipt of systemic therapy as the incident event of interest (numerator) over time to initiation of therapy (denominator) and used to calculate incident rate ratios that were further analyzed using Poisson regression analysis. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was constructed for survival analysis, and differences were reported as hazard ratios (HRs).

Results

We identified 56,102 patients for enrollment analysis and 50,543 patients for survival analysis. Therapy enrollment in a multivariate model was significantly impacted by race and sex (p < .005). Advanced age, earlier year of diagnosis, lack of insurance or Medicaid, and higher comorbidity were associated with poor survival (HR > 1), whereas female sex, non-Hispanic black race, higher income, and treatment at an academic center were associated with improved survival (HR < 1).

Conclusion

Disparities in treatment of MM exist and are caused by a complex interplay of multiple factors, with socioeconomic factor playing a significant role. Studies exploring such determinants may help in equitable distribution of resources to overcome such differences.