Search

Background Adjuvant radiotherapy following breast conservation surgery (BCS) is considered to be an indicator of quality of care for the majority of women with breast cancer, but many women do not receive adjuvant radiotherapy. We investigated the association of surgeon-related factors with receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy after BCS. Methods We used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify women aged 65 years or older with stage I/II breast cancer who were diagnosed between 1991 and 2002 and underwent BCS. We collected demographic and clinical data from SEER and treatment information from Medicare claims data. The American Medical Association Masterfiie was used to obtain information on surgeons' characteristics, including sex, medical school location (United States or elsewhere), and type of degree (MD or Doctorate in Osteopathic Medicine [DO]). The associations of patient (age, race, rural vs urban residence, comorbidities, marital status), tumor (hormone receptor status, grade, stage), and surgeon-related factors with receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations to control for clustering. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Of 29760 women in our sample, 22207 (75%) received radiotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and were more likely to be white, married, from an urban area, and diagnosed in a later year compared with those who did not. They were also more likely to have a surgeon who was female (79% vs 73%), had an MD degree (75% vs 68%), or was US trained (75% vs 70%). The multivariable analysis confirmed the association of radiotherapy with having a surgeon who was female (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06 to 1.27), had an MD degree (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.91), was US trained (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.25), or had more than 15 patients (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.28). Conclusions Surgeon characteristics were associated with patients' receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy after BCS after controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, although the individual effect sizes were small for surgeon sex, location of training, and type of medical degree. More research is warranted to confirm the associations to determine whether they reflect surgeon behavior, patient response, or physician--patient interactions.

Background Recently, increasing numbers of women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer have also received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors (GM-CSFs). Although these growth factors support chemotherapy, their long-term safety has not been evaluated. We studied the association between G-CSF use and incidence of leukemia in a population-based sample of breast cancer patients. Methods Among women aged 65 years or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results--Medicare database who were diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1999, we identified those who received G-CSF or GM-CSF concurrently with chemotherapy. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for the association of treatment with G-CSF or GM-CSF and subsequent (through December 31, 2003) diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Of 5510 women treated with chemotherapy, 906 (16%) received G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy, and 64 (1.16%) were subsequently diagnosed with either MDS or AML before a cancer recurrence. Use of G-CSF and GM-CSF was associated with more recent diagnosis, younger age, urban residence, fewer comorbidities, receipt of radiation therapy, positive lymph nodes, and cyclophosphamide treatment. Of the 906 patients who were treated with G-CSF, 16 (1.77%) developed AML or MDS; of the 4604 patients not treated with G-CSF, 48 (1.04%) developed AML or MDS. The hazard rate ratio for AML or MDS among those treated with G-CSF or GM-CSF compared with those who were not was 2.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 4.08). AML or MDS developed within 48 months of breast cancer diagnosis in 1.8% of patients who received G-CSF or GM-CSF but only in 0.7% of patients who did not (hazard ratio = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.30 to 5.15). Conclusions The use of G-CSF was associated with a doubling in the risk of subsequent AML or MDS among the population that we studied, although the absolute risk remained low. Even if this association is confirmed, the benefits of G-CSF may still outweigh the risks. Meanwhile, however, G-CSF use should not be assumed to be risk free.

Background: For BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, decision analysis indicates that prophylactic surgery or chemoprevention leads to better survival than surveillance alone. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the preventive strategies that are available to unaffected women carrying a single BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation with high cancer penetrance. Design: Markov modeling with Monte Carlo simulations and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Data Sources: Breast and ovarian cancer incidence and mortality rates, preference ratings, and costs derived from the literature; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program; and the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Target Population: Unaffected carriers of a single BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation 35 to 50 years of age. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health policy, societal. Interventions: Tamoxifen, oral contraceptives, bilateral salpingooophorectomy, mastectomy, both surgeries, or surveillance. Outcome Measures: Cost-effectiveness. Results of Base-Case Analysis: For mutation carriers 35 years of age, both surgeries (prophylactic bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over oophorectomy alone of $2352 per life-year for BRCA1 and $100 per life-year for BRCA2. With quality adjustment, oophorectomy dominated all other strategies for BRCA1 and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2281 per life-year for BRCA2. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Older age at intervention increased the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic mastectomy for BRCA1 mutation carriers to $73 755 per life-year. Varying the penetrance, mortality rates, costs, discount rates, and preferences had minimal effects on outcomes. Limitations: Results are dependent on the accuracy of model assumptions. Conclusion: On the basis of this model, the most cost-effective strategies for BRCA mutation carriers, with and without quality adjustment, were oophorectomy alone and oophorectomy and mastectomy, respectively.

TO THE EDITOR: I am writing to correct an egregious error in Efraim Karsh's article about the controversy at Columbia University over allegations of classroom bias against pro-Israel students ['Columbia [...]

Background: Although the risk of bowel perforation is often cited as a major factor in the choice between colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal screening, good estimates of the absolute and relative risks of perforation are lacking. Methods: We used a large population-based cohort that consisted of a random sample of 5% of Medicare beneficiaries living in regions of the United States covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries to determine rates of perforation in people aged 65 years and older. We identified individuals who were cancer-free and had undergone colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy between 1991 and 1998, calculated both the incidence and risk of perforation within 7 days of the procedure, and explored the impact on incidence and risk of perforation of age, race/ ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and indication for the procedure. We also estimated the risk of death after perforation. Risks were calculated with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: There were 77 perforations after 39 286 colonoscopies (incidence = 1.96/1000 procedures) and 31 perforations after 35 298 sigmoidoscopies (incidence = 0.88/1000 procedures). After adjustment, the OR for perforation from colonoscopy relative to perforation from sigmoidoscopy was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.2 to 2.8). Risk of perforation from either procedure increased in association with increasing age ([P.sub.trend]

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy after surgical resection of node-positive colon cancer. Although this treatment became the standard in 1990 following a National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference, among those at least 65 years of age it is less likely to be offered to older or nonwhite patients. Objective: To determine the association between 5-FU-based chemotherapy and survival in older patients. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Combined database of the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and Medicare. Patients: 4768 patients 65 years of age or older who received a diagnosis of node-positive colon cancer from 1992 to 1996, were covered by Medicare Parts A and B, and resided in the population covered by the SEER program. Measurements: Propensity scores to control for known predictors of receiving treatment, Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association of 5-FU therapy with survival, and sensitivity analyses to estimate the possible effects of unknown confounders. Results: Fifty-two percent of patients received 5-FU therapy. For this sample, the hazard ratio for death associated with 5-FU therapy was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.73). Confounding could have accounted for this association only if an unmeasured confounder were extremely unequally distributed between the treated and untreated groups or increased mortality by at least 50%. Conclusions: 5-Fluorouracil adjuvant therapy is significantly associated with reduced mortality in older patients, similar to the association found in randomized, controlled trials among younger patients. More frequent use of 5-FU therapy in older patients would probably reduce death from colon cancer.

Background: The risk for colorectal cancer among family members of patients with colorectal cancer is well established, but the risk among family members of patients with colorectal adenomas is less well established. Objective: To examine the risk for colorectal cancer among first-degree relatives of patients with adenoma compared with that among first-degree relatives of controls without adenoma. Design: Reconstructed cohort study. Setting: Three university-based colonoscopy practices in New York City. Patients: 1554 first-degree relatives of 244 patients with newly diagnosed adenomas and 2173 first-degree relatives of 362 endoscopically normal controls. Measurements: Structured interviews were used to obtain family history. Adjusted relative risks (RR) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The risk for colorectal cancer was elevated (RR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.45]) among first-degree relatives of patients with newly diagnosed adenomas compared with the risk among first-degree relatives of controls. This increased risk was the same for parents (RR, 1.58 [CI, 1.07 to 2.34]) and siblings (RR, 1.58 [CI, 0.81 to 3.08]). First-degree relatives of patients with adenomas did not have elevated risk for other cancers. The risk for colorectal cancer among family members increased with decreasing age at diagnosis of adenoma in probands. Among first-degree relatives of patients who were 50 years of age or younger when the adenoma was diagnosed, the risk was more than four times greater (RR, 4.36 [CI, 2.24 to 8.51]) than that among first-degree relatives of patients who were older than 60 years of age when the adenoma was diagnosed. Conclusions: First-degree relatives of patients with newly diagnosed adenomas, particularly of patients who are 50 years of age or younger at diagnosis, are at increased risk for colorectal cancer and should undergo screening similar to that recommended for relatives of patients with colorectal cancer., Close family members of patients with colorectal adenomatous polyps may be at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Researchers interviewed 1,554 first-degree relatives of 244 patients with the benign colon tumors and 2,173 relatives of 362 people without growths in the colon. The risk of ultimately developing colorectal cancer was 74% greater in the parents and siblings of those with colorectal polyps. People with a close family history of polyposis or colon cancer should be screened regularly for growths in the colon.