4.5 Article

Impact of body mass index on overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Journal

BREAST
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 16-24

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.014

Keywords

Metastatic breast cancer; Overall survival; BMI; Underweight; Obesity

Funding

  1. Roche
  2. Pfizer
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. MSD
  5. Eisai
  6. Daiichi Sankyo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that being overweight or obese does not lead to poorer outcomes in women with metastatic breast cancer, while being underweight may be an independent adverse prognostic factor.
Background: High Body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for breast cancer among postmenopausal women and an adverse prognostic factor in early-stage. Little is known about its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: The National ESME-MBC observational cohort includes all consecutive patients newly diagnosed with MBC between Jan 2008 and Dec 2016 in the 18 French comprehensive cancer centers. Results: Of 22 463 patients in ESME-MBC, 12 999 women had BMI data available at MBC diagnosis. Median BMI was 24.9 kg/m(2) (range 12.1-66.5); 20% of women were obese and 5% underweight. Obesity was associated with more de novo MBC, while underweight patients had more aggressive cancer features. Median overall survival (OS) of the BMI cohort was 47.4 months (95% CI [46.2-48.5]) (median follow-up: 48.6 months). Underweight was independently associated with a worse OS (median OS 33 months; HR 1.14, 95%CI, 1.02-1.27) and first line progression-free survival (HR, 1.11; 95%CI, 1.01; 1.22), while overweight or obesity had no effect. Conclusion: Overweight and obesity are not associated with poorer outcomes in women with metastatic disease, while underweight appears as an independent adverse prognostic factor. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available