Controversies in loco-regional treatment: post-mastectomy radiation for pT2-pT3N0 breast cancer arguments in favour

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

National Evaluation of the New Commission on Cancer Quality Measure for Postmastectomy Radiation Treatment for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for patients with ≥4 positive lymph nodes and suggest strong consideration of PMRT in those with 1-3 positive nodes. These recommendations were incorporated into a Commission on Cancer quality measure in 2014. However, national adherence with these recommendations is unknown. Our objectives were to describe PMRT use in the United States in patients with stage I to III invasive breast cancer and to examine possible factors associated with the omission of PMRT.

METHODS

From the National Cancer Data Base, 753,536 mastectomies at 1123 hospitals were identified from 1998 to 2011. PMRT use over time was examined using random effects logistic regression analyses, adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics. Analyses were stratified by nodal status (≥4 nodes positive, 1-3 nodes positive, node negative).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving PMRT increased from 1998 to 2011 (>4 positive nodes: 56.2 to 66.6 %; 1-3 positive nodes: 28.0 to 39.1 %; node-negative: 8.3 to 10.0 %, p < 0.001 for all). In adjusted analyses, patients with ≥4 positive nodes were more likely to have PMRT omitted if they had smaller tumors. Patients with 1-3 positive nodes were more likely to have PMRT omitted if they had lower grade or smaller tumors. Irrespective of patients' nodal status, PMRT utilization rates decreased as age increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Though PMRT rates increased over time in patients with ≥4 and 1-3 positive nodes, PMRT in patients with ≥4 positive nodes remains underutilized. Feedback to hospitals using the new Commission on Cancer PMRT measure may help to improve adherence rates.