Association Between Neighborhood Opportunity, Allostatic Load, and All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Breast Cancer

Author(s): J.C. Chen, MD¹; Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH^2,3; Demond Handley, MS^2,3; Jesse J. Plascak, PhD⁴; Barbara L. Andersen, PhD⁵; William E. Carson, MD¹; Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA¹; Naleef Fareed, PhD²; Samilia Obeng-Gyasi, MD, MPH¹

Source: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00907

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Noteworthy NCCI database study showing zip code has a negative influence on tumor burden and outcomes. I wonder if the presence of community oncology practices in similar geographical zones reduces this interaction of environmental opportunity and outcomes.

PURPOSE

Adverse neighborhood contextual factors may affect breast cancer outcomes through environmental, psychosocial, and biological pathways. The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between allostatic load (AL), neighborhood opportunity, and all-cause mortality among patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

Women age 18 years and older with newly diagnosed stage I-III breast cancer who received surgical treatment between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2020, at a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center were identified. Neighborhood opportunity was operationalized using the 2014-2018 Ohio Opportunity Index (OOI), a composite measure derived from neighborhood level transportation, education, employment, health, housing, crime, and environment. Logistic and Cox regression models tested associations between the OOI, AL, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 4,089 patients. Residence in neighborhoods with low OOI was associated with high AL (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.40]). On adjusted analysis, low OOI was associated with greater risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.89]). Relative to the highest (99th percentile) level of opportunity, risk of all-cause mortality steeply increased up to the 70th percentile, at which point the rate of increase plateaued. There was no interaction between the composite OOI and AL on all-cause mortality (P = .12). However, there was a higher mortality risk among patients with high AL residing in lower-opportunity environments (aHR, 1.96), but not in higher-opportunity environments (aHR, 1.02; P interaction = .02).

CONCLUSION

Lower neighborhood opportunity was associated with higher AL and greater risk of all-cause mortality among patients with breast cancer. Additionally, environmental factors and AL interacted to influence all-cause mortality. Future studies should focus on interventions at the neighborhood and individual level to address socioeconomically based disparities in breast cancer.

Author Affiliations

¹Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; ²Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; ³Secondary Data Core, Center for Biostatistics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; ⁴Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; ⁵Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Untreated, Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

ASCENT-03 shows that in first-line, PD-1/PD-L1–ineligible advanced TNBC, sacituzumab improves PFS to 9.7 vs 6.9 months and extends median duration of response (DOR) to 12.2 vs 7.2 months, with similar overall response rate (ORR) (48% vs 46%) and immature overall survival (OS) (21.5 vs 20.2 months) Grade ≥3. Adverse events (AEs) were comparable (66% vs 62%), but sacituzumab had more neutropenia and diarrhea, fewer discontinuations (4% vs 12%), and early-cycle infection-related deaths in patients without primary G-CSF. For PD-1/PD-L1–ineligible mTNBC, SG offers more durable control than chemo with manageable myelosuppression — so consider SG first-line and start G-CSF early in higher-risk patients.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO-ASCO-SSO Clinical Practice Guideline

Guidelines for post-mastectomy radiation include patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, with or without residual disease after treatment. A good topic to review.

First-Line Camizestrant for Emerging ESR1-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer

Our site participated in this study, where patients were tested for ESR1 mutations via circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Those who tested positive were switched to camizestrant (Cami), which demonstrated improved progression-free survival.

Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC Estrogen Receptor Degrader, in Advanced Breast Cancer

Vepdegestrant is an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) estrogen receptor (ER) degrader that directly utilizes the ubiquitin–proteasome system. It was compared to fulvestrant in patients who had received one prior line of hormonal therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Among patients with ESR1 mutations, Vepdegestrant demonstrated a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.0 months versus 2.1 months with fulvestrant. In the overall population, the median PFS was 3.8 months for Vepdegestrant and 3.6 months for fulvestrant, indicating that the drug showed particular efficacy in tumors harboring ESR1 mutations.

Elinzanetant for Vasomotor Symptoms from Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer

Elinzanitant, a neurokinin-targeted therapy, has been shown to reduce vasomotor symptoms compared to placebo. These symptoms are one of the reasons some of my patients discontinue aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, so Elinzanitant presents a promising alternative to help manage these side effects. Additionally, Fezolinetant is already approved and available on the market.