3.9 Article

Factors Influencing Treatment Recommendations in Node-Negative Breast Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 26-30

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000024

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Institute NSW

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess factors influencing recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in relation to perceived benefits in women with stage 1 breast cancer and to determine the degree to which recommendations were followed. Methods: Recommendations from multidisciplinary team meetings at Royal North Shore Hospital (Sydney, Australia) during 2007 and 2008 for postoperative patients with invasive, primary breast cancer were reviewed. Treatment data were collected from patients' medical records. Estimated benefits of adjuvant CT on 10-year survival for node-negative patients were calculated using Adjuvant! Online. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using SPSS. Results: Of 345 patients (mean age, 59 years), 51 were unsuitable for CT as a result of comorbidity and/or age > 80 years. All 93 patients with nodal macrometastases who were suitable for CT and 20 (80%) of 25 with micrometastases were recommended for CT, compared with 92 (53%) of 175 node-negative patients. Tumor size > 2 cm, grade 3, estrogen receptor negativity, and age less than 45 years were independent factors influencing CT recommendation. The mean estimated benefit of CT in node-negative patients who received this recommendation was 5.7% versus 1.3% in patients not recommended for CT. Twenty-one (23%) node-negative patients declined CT after discussion with a medical oncologist. A higher proportion of nodenegative patients were recommended for CT in 2008 versus 2007 (60% v 44%, P = .04). Conclusions: Grade, tumor size, estrogen receptor status, and younger age are the most significant factors influencing CT recommendation in node-negative patients. The minimum level of benefit to recommend CT is approximately 2%. A significant proportion of patients do not proceed with CT after individualized review.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据