Assessing the Impact of CALGB 9343 on Surgical Trends in Elderly-Women With Stage I ER+ Breast Cancer: A SEER-Based Analysis

The addition of radiotherapy to breast-conserving surgery improves survival for elderly patients with early breast cancer

Purpose

To evaluate whether adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was associated with better survival among elderly (≥70 years) breast cancer patients with T1-2N0 and estrogen receptor (ER) positive disease.

Methods

We included patients who met the inclusion criteria between 2010 and 2014 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Patients were subdivided into three groups based on surgery and RT: BCS alone, BCS plus RT, and refusal of RT. The primary outcomes were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). Chi-squared tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and Multivariate Cox regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the potential selection bias.

Results

A total of 26586 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up was 66 months. Of these patients, 15591 (58.6%) patients received RT, RT was recommended but not performed due to patient refusal for 1270 (4.8%) patients, and RT was not recommended for 9725 (36.6%) patients. The 5-year BCSS was 98.3% for patients receiving RT, 97.1% for patients refusal of RT, and 96.4% for patients not recommended RT (P<0.001). The 5-year OS was 88.6% for patients receiving RT, 77.6% for patients who refused RT, and 72.1% for patients not recommended RT (P<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that patients who received adjuvant RT after BCS had significantly better BCSS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.523, 95%confidence interval [CI] 0.447-0.612, P<0.001) and OS (HR 0.589, 95%CI 0.558-0.622, P<0.001) compared to those without RT. A total of 7721 pairs of patients were matched successfully between those with and without RT using PSM. The results also showed that patients who received RT after BCS had significantly better BCSS (HR 562, 95%CI 0.467-0.676, P<0.001) and OS (HR 0.612, 95%CI 0.0.575-0.652, P<0.001) compared to those without RT.

Conclusions

These data suggest that individual counseling is important for treatment decision-making in elderly breast cancer patients with T1-2N0 and ER-positive disease. Given the relatively lower toxicity of modern RT techniques, adjuvant RT should be recommended in patients with high life expectancy.

Impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare: A systematic review of assessment methods, healthcare outcomes, and determinants

BACKGROUND

Frameworks used in research impact evaluation studies vary widely and it remains unclear which methods are most appropriate for evaluating research impact in the field of surgical research. Therefore, we aimed to identify and review the methods used to assess the impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare and to identify determinants for surgical impact.

METHODS

We searched journal databases up to March 10, 2020 for papers assessing the impact of surgical effectiveness trials on healthcare. Two researchers independently screened the papers for eligibility and performed a Risk of Bias assessment. Characteristics of both impact papers and trial papers were summarized. Univariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for finding research impact, which was defined as a change in healthcare practice.

RESULTS

Sixty-one impact assessments were performed in 37 included impact papers. Some surgical trial papers were evaluated in more than one impact paper, which provides a total of 38 evaluated trial papers. Most impact papers were published after 2010 (n = 29). Medical records (n = 10), administrative databases (n = 22), and physician's opinion through surveys (n = 5) were used for data collection. Those data were analyzed purely descriptively (n = 3), comparing data before and after publication (n = 29), or through time series analyses (n = 5). Significant healthcare impact was observed 49 times and more often in more recent publications. Having impact was positively associated with using medical records or administrative databases (ref.: surveys), a longer timeframe for impact evaluation and more months between the publication of the trial paper and the impact paper, data collection in North America (ref.: Europe), no economic evaluation of the intervention, finding no significant difference in surgical outcomes, and suggesting de-implementation in the original trial paper.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research impact evaluation receives growing interest, but still a small number of impact papers per year was identified. The analysis showed that characteristics of both surgical trial papers and impact papers were associated with finding research impact. We advise to collect data from either medical records or administrative databases, with an evaluation time frame of at least 4 years since trial publication.