Objective: To compare the clinicopathologic features and survival in the four breast cancer subtypes defined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2): ER/PR+,Her2+; ER/PR+, Her2-; ER/PR-,Her2+; and ER/PR-,Her2-. Methods:A 7-year retrospective study of 1134 invasive breast cancer subjects. Clinical and pathologic features and survival of the four subtypes were compared.Results: Using ER/PR+ and Her2-as a reference, ER/PR-,Her2-had the worst overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.2) and the worst disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0). In ER/PR+,Her2-, chemotherapy conferred significant overall and disease-free survival advantages. Subtype comparison revealed statistically significant differences in outcomes. Conclusion:The triple negative subtype has the worst overall and disease free survival. Efforts should be directed at standardization of current testing methods and development of more reliable and reproducible testing.

BackgroundClinical trials demonstrated that women treated for breast cancer with anthracycline or trastuzumab are at increased risk for heart failure and/or cardiomyopathy (HF/CM), but the generalizability of these findings is unknown. We estimated real-world adjuvant anthracycline and trastuzumab use and their associations with incident HF/CM.MethodsWe conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of 12 500 women diagnosed with incident, invasive breast cancer from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2007, at eight integrated Cancer Research Network health systems. Using administrative procedure and pharmacy codes, we identified anthracycline, trastuzumab, and other chemotherapy use. We identified incident HF/CM following chemotherapy initiation and assessed risk of HF/CM with time-varying chemotherapy exposures vs no chemotherapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adjustment for age at diagnosis, stage, Cancer Research Network site, year of diagnosis, radiation therapy, and comorbidities. ResultsAmong 12 500 women (mean age = 60 years, range = 22–99 years), 29.6% received anthracycline alone, 0.9% received trastuzumab alone, 3.5% received anthracycline plus trastuzumab, 19.5% received other chemotherapy, and 46.5% received no chemotherapy. Anthracycline and trastuzumab recipients were younger, with fewer comorbidities than recipients of other chemotherapy or none. Compared with no chemotherapy, the risk of HF/CM was higher in patients treated with anthracycline alone (adjusted HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.76), although the increased risk was similar to other chemotherapy (adjusted HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.77); the risk was highly increased in patients treated with trastuzumab alone (adjusted HR = 4.12, 95% CI = 2.30 to 7.42) or anthracycline plus trastuzumab (adjusted HR = 7.19, 95% CI = 5.00 to 10.35).ConclusionsAnthracycline and trastuzumab were primarily used in younger, healthier women and associated with increased HF/CM risk compared with no chemotherapy. This population-based observational study complements findings from clinical trials on cancer treatment safety.

Context Health care reform calls for increasing physician accountability and transparency of outcomes. Partial mastectomy is the most commonly performed procedure for invasive breast cancer and often requires reexcision. Variability in reexcision might be reflective of the quality of care.Objective To assess hospital and surgeon-specific variation in reexcision rates following partial mastectomy. Design, Setting, and Patients An observational study of breast surgery performed between 2003 and 2008 intended to evaluate variability in breast cancer surgical care outcomes and evaluate potential quality measures of breast cancer surgery. Women with invasive breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy from 4 institutions were studied (1 university hospital [University of Vermont] and 3 large health plans [Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Group Health, and Marshfield Clinic]). Data were obtained from electronic medical records and chart abstraction of surgical, pathology, radiology, and outpatient records, including detailed surgical margin status. Logistic regression including surgeon-level random effects was used to identify predictors of reexcision. Main Outcome Measure Incidence of reexcision.Results A total of 2206 women with 2220 invasive breast cancers underwent partial mastectomy and 509 patients (22.9%; 95% CI, 21.2%-24.7%) underwent reexcision (454 patients [89.2%; 95% CI, 86.5%-91.9%] had 1 reexcision, 48 [9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%] had 2 reexcisions, and 7 [1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%] had 3 reexcisions). Among all patients undergoing initial partial mastectomy, total mastectomy was performed in 190 patients (8.5%; 95% CI, 7.2%-9.5%). Reexcision rates for margin status following initial surgery were 85.9% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.8%) for initial positive margins, 47.9% (95% CI, 42.0%-53.9%) for less than 1.0 mm margins, 20.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-25.0%) for 1.0 to 1.9 mm margins, and 6.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%) for 2.0 to 2.9 mm margins. For patients with negative margins, reexcision rates varied widely among surgeons (range, 0%-70%; P=.003) and institutions (range, 1.7%-20.9%; PϽ.001). Reexcision rates were not associated with surgeon procedure volume after adjusting for case mix (P=.92). ConclusionSubstantial surgeon and institutional variation were observed in reexcision following partial mastectomy in women with invasive breast cancer.

Objective: To compare the clinicopathologic features and survival in the four breast cancer subtypes defined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2): ER/PR+,Her2+; ER/PR+, Her2-; ER/PR-,Her2+; and ER/PR-,Her2-. Methods:A 7-year retrospective study of 1134 invasive breast cancer subjects. Clinical and pathologic features and survival of the four subtypes were compared.Results: Using ER/PR+ and Her2-as a reference, ER/PR-,Her2-had the worst overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.2) and the worst disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0). In ER/PR+,Her2-, chemotherapy conferred significant overall and disease-free survival advantages. Subtype comparison revealed statistically significant differences in outcomes. Conclusion:The triple negative subtype has the worst overall and disease free survival. Efforts should be directed at standardization of current testing methods and development of more reliable and reproducible testing.

Hyponatremia is an important and common electrolyte disorder in tumor patients and one that has been reported in association with a number of different primary diagnoses. The correct diagnosis of the pathophysiological basis for each patient is important because it significantly alters the treatment approach. In this article, we review the epidemiology and presentation of patients with hyponatremia, the pathophysiologic groups for the disorder with respect to sodium and water balance and the diagnostic measures for determining the correct pathophysiologic groups. We then present the various treatment options based on the pathophysiologic groups including a mathematical approach to the use of hypertonic saline in management. In cancer patients, hyponatremia is a serious co-morbidity that requires particular attention as its treatment varies by pathophysiologic groups, and its consequences can have a deleterious effect on the patient's health.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and cancer are common diseases that are frequently diagnosed in the same individual. An association between the two conditions has long been postulated. Here, we review the epidemiological evidence for increased risk of cancer, decreased cancer survival, and decreased rates of cancer screening in diabetic patients. The risk for several cancers, including cancers of the pancreas, liver, colorectum, breast, urinary tract, and endometrium, is increased in patients with DM. In a pooled risk analysis weighting published meta-analytic relative risk (RR) for individual cancer by differences in their incidence rates, we found a population RR of 0.97 (95 % CI, 0.75–1.25) in men and 1.29 (95 % CI, 1.16–1.44) in women. All meta-analyses showed an increased relative risk for cancer in diabetic men, except studies of prostate cancer, in which a protective effect was observed. The relationship between diabetes and cancer appears to be complex, and at present, a clear temporal relationship between the two conditions cannot be defined. DM also impacts negatively on cancer-related survival outcomes and cancer screening rates. The overwhelming evidence for lower cancer screening rates, increased incidence of certain cancers, and poorer prognosis after cancer diagnosis in diabetic patients dictates a need for improved cancer care in diabetic individuals through improved screening measures, development of risk assessment tools, and consideration of cancer prevention strategies in diabetic patients. Part two of this review focuses on the biological and pharmacological mechanisms that may account for the association between DM and cancer.

No abstract

Objectives: Evidence suggests superiority of breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation over mastectomy alone for treatment of early stage breast cancer. Whether the superiority of BCS plus radiation is related to the surgical approach itself or to the addition of adjuvant radiation therapy following BCS remains unclear. Materials and Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with breast cancer diagnosed from 1994-2012. Data regarding patient and tumor characteristics and treatment specifics were captured electronically. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed with inverse probability of treatment weighting to reduce selection bias effects in surgical assignment.Results: Data from 5335 women were included, of which two-thirds had BCS and one-third had mastectomy. Surgical decision trends changed over time with more women undergoing mastectomy in recent years. Women who underwent BCS versus mastectomy differed significantly regarding age, cancer stage/grade, adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and endocrine treatment. Overall survival was similar for BCS and mastectomy. When BCS plus radiation was compared to mastectomy alone, 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival was 96.5% vs 93.4%, 92.9% vs 88.3% and 80.9% vs 67.2%, respectively. Conclusion:These analyses suggest that survival benefit is not related only to the surgery itself, but that the prognostic advantage of BCS plus radiation over mastectomy may also be related to the addition of adjuvant radiation therapy. This conclusion requires prospective confirmation in randomized trials.