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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
MammaPrint did not predict distant recurrence, but it did predict patients who may benefit from extended hormonal therapy. We do have breast index, so now we have options. Breast index can predict the possibility of recurrence though by helping to determine the level of risk.
This study confirms what we saw in initial reports showing the addition of pembro increasing the rate of ypathological complete response (ypCR’s) in the neoadjuvant setting for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). New data shows a 5% improvement (87 vs 82%) in overall survival (OS) with the quadruplet. Higher gains but at higher cost of toxicity. The fact that adjuvant intraosseous (IO) does not seem to improve outcomes, but neoadjuvant chemo+IO does show intact tumor-immune interactions to create maximum treatment effectiveness is most likely real. Of note, this seems mostly independent of programmed death-ligand 1 (PDL1) status.
Adding Inavolisib to CKD4/6 inhibitor and AI improved progression-free survival (almost doubled 15 vs 7m) but toxicity was higher still in the single digits (hyperglycemia, diarrhea, stomatitis… all less than 6% G3/4).
Well done study showing a 20% decrease in recurrence risk when using dose dense therapy [EC]/D compared to conventional dose [FEC]/D. Sometimes it is worth it to push.
Myth busted. In aggressive breast cancer, no need to start chemotherapy now, ET and CKD4/6 inhibitors are better tolerated with significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and same response rate.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
