The impact of histologic subtype on primary site surgery in the management of metastatic lobular versus ductal breast cancer: a population based study from the National Cancer Database (NCDB)

Purpose Primary site surgery for metastatic breast cancer improves local control but does not impact overall survival. Whether histologic subtype influences patient selection for surgery is unknown. Given differences in surgical management between early-stage lobular versus ductal disease, we evalua...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Breast cancer research and treatment 2024-01, Vol.203 (2), p.245-256
Hauptverfasser: Rothschild, Harriet T, Clelland, Elle N, Abel, Mary Kathryn, Chien, A Jo, Shui, Amy M, Esserman, Laura, Khan, Seema A, Mukhtar, Rita A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Primary site surgery for metastatic breast cancer improves local control but does not impact overall survival. Whether histologic subtype influences patient selection for surgery is unknown. Given differences in surgical management between early-stage lobular versus ductal disease, we evaluated the impact of histology on primary site surgery in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods The National Cancer Database (NCDB, 2010–2016) was queried for patients with stage IV HR-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). We compared clinicopathologic features, primary site surgery rates, and outcomes by histologic subtype. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with and without propensity score matching were used for overall survival (OS) analyses. Results In 25,294 patients, primary site surgery was slightly but significantly less common in the 6,123 patients with ILC compared to the 19,171 patients with IDC (26.9% versus 28.8%, p  = 0.004). Those with ILC were less likely to receive chemotherapy (41.3% versus 47.4%, p  
ISSN:0167-6806
1573-7217
DOI:10.1007/s10549-023-07125-5