Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials

Background Moderate di?erences in e?cacy between adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer are plausible, and could a? ect treatment choices. We sought any such di?erences.

Methods We undertook individual-patient-data meta-analyses of the randomised trials comparing: any taxane-plusanthracycline-based regimen versus the same, or more, non-taxane chemotherapy (n=44 000); one anthracyclinebased regimen versus another (n=7000) or versus cyclo phosphamide, methotrexate, and ?uorouracil (CMF; n=18 000); and polychemotherapy versus no chemotherapy (n=32 000). The scheduled dosages of these three drugs and of the anthracyclines doxorubicin (A) and epirubicin (E) were used to de? ne standard CMF, standard 4AC, and CAF and CEF. Log-rank breast cancer mortality rate ratios (RRs) are reported.

Findings In trials adding four separate cycles of a taxane to a ?xed anthracycline-based control regimen, extending treatment duration, breast cancer mortality was reduced (RR 0·86, SE 0·04, two-sided signi?cance [2p]=0·0005). In trials with four such extra cycles of a taxane counterbalanced in controls by extra cycles of other cytotoxic drugs, roughly doubling non-taxane dosage, there was no signi?cant di?erence (RR 0·94, SE 0·06, 2p=0·33). Trials with CMF-treated controls showed that standard 4AC and standard CMF were equivalent (RR 0·98, SE 0·05, 2p=0·67), but that anthracycline-based regimens with substantially higher cumulative dosage than standard 4AC (eg, CAF or CEF) were superior to standard CMF (RR 0·78, SE 0·06, 2p=0·0004). Trials versus no chemotherapy also suggested greater mortality reductions with CAF (RR 0·64, SE 0·09, 2p<0·0001) than with standard 4AC (RR 0·78, SE 0·09, 2p=0·01) or
standard CMF (RR 0·76, SE 0·05, 2p<0·0001). In all meta-analyses involving taxane-based or anthracycline-based regimens, proportional risk reductions were little a? ected by age, nodal status, tumour diameter or di?erentiation (moderate or poor; few were well di?erentiated), oestrogen receptor status, or tamoxifen use. Hence, largely independently of age (up to at least 70 years) or the tumour characteristics currently available to us for the patients selected to be in these trials, some taxane-plus-anthracycline-based or higher-cumulative-dosage anthracycline-based regimens (not requiring stem cells) reduced breast cancer mortality by, on average, about one-third. 10-year overall mortality di?erences paralleled breast cancer mortality di?erences, despite taxane, anthracycline, and other toxicities.

Interpretation 10-year gains from a one-third breast cancer mortality reduction depend on absolute risks without chemotherapy (which, for oestrogen-receptor-positive disease, are the risks remaining with appropriate endocrine therapy). Low absolute risk implies low absolute bene?t, but information was lacking about tumour gene expression markers or quantitative immunohistochemistry that might help to predict risk, chemosensitivity, or both.

Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials

Background: After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy reduces recurrence and breast cancer death, but it may do so more for some groups of women than for others. We describe the absolute magnitude of these reductions according to various prognostic and other patient characteristics, and relate the absolute reduction in 15-year risk of breast cancer death to the absolute reduction in 10-year recurrence risk.
Methods: We undertook a meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10?801 women in 17 randomised trials of radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery, 8337 of whom had pathologically confirmed node-negative (pN0) or node-positive (pN+) disease.
Findings: Overall, radiotherapy reduced the 10-year risk of any (ie, locoregional or distant) first recurrence from 35·0% to 19·3% (absolute reduction 15·7%, 95% CI 13·7–17·7, 2p<0·00001) and reduced the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 25·2% to 21·4% (absolute reduction 3·8%, 1·6–6·0, 2p=0·00005). In women with pN0 disease (n=7287), radiotherapy reduced these risks from 31·0% to 15·6% (absolute recurrence reduction 15·4%, 13·2–17·6, 2p<0·00001) and from 20·5% to 17·2% (absolute mortality reduction 3·3%, 0·8–5·8, 2p=0·005), respectively. In these women with pN0 disease, the absolute recurrence reduction varied according to age, grade, oestrogen-receptor status, tamoxifen use, and extent of surgery, and these characteristics were used to predict large (=20%), intermediate (10–19%), or lower (<10%) absolute reductions in the 10-year recurrence risk. Absolute reductions in 15-year risk of breast cancer death in these three prediction categories were 7·8% (95% CI 3·1–12·5), 1·1% (–2·0 to 4·2), and 0·1% (–7·5 to 7·7) respectively (trend in absolute mortality reduction 2p=0·03). In the few women with pN+ disease (n=1050), radiotherapy reduced the 10-year recurrence risk from 63·7% to 42·5% (absolute reduction 21·2%, 95% CI 14·5–27·9, 2p<0·00001) and the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 51·3% to 42·8% (absolute reduction 8·5%, 1·8–15·2, 2p=0·01). Overall, about one breast cancer death was avoided by year 15 for every four recurrences avoided by year 10, and the mortality reduction did not differ significantly from this overall relationship in any of the three prediction categories for pN0 disease or for pN+ disease.
Interpretation: After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy to the conserved breast halves the rate at which the disease recurs and reduces the breast cancer death rate by about a sixth. These proportional benefits vary little between different groups of women. By contrast, the absolute benefits from radiotherapy vary substantially according to the characteristics of the patient and they can be predicted at the time when treatment decisions need to be made.
Funding: Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, and UK Medical Research Council.

Bone mineral density in relation to medical and lifestyle risk factors for osteoporosis in premenopausal, menopausal and postmenopausal women in general practice

Background: Interest in the prevention of osteoporosis is increasing and thus there is a need for an acceptable osteoporosis prevention programme in general practice. AIM. A study was undertaken to identify a cohort of middle-aged women attending a general practice who would be eligible for a longitudinal study looking at bone mineral density, osteoporosis and the effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy. This study aimed to describe the relationship between medical and lifestyle risk factors for osteoporosis and the initial bone density measurements in this group of women. METHOD. A health visitor administered a questionnaire to women aged between 48 and 52 years registered with a Belfast general practice. The main outcome measures were menopausal status, presence of medical and lifestyle risk factors and bone mineral density measurements. RESULTS. A total of 358 women our of 472 (76%) took part in the study which was conducted in 1991 and 1992. A highly significant difference was found between the mean bone mineral density of premenopausal, menopausal and postmenopausal women within the narrow study age range, postmenopausal women having the lowest bone mineral density. A significant relationship was found between body mass index and bone mineral density, a greater bone mineral density being found among women with a higher body mass index. Risk factors such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle were common (reported by approximately one third of respondents) but a poor relationship was found between these two and all the other risk factors and bone mineral density in this age group. CONCLUSION. Risk of osteoporosis cannot be identified by the presence of risk factors in women aged between 48 and 52 years. In terms of a current prevention strategy for general practice it would be better to take a population-based approach except for those women known to be at high risk of osteoporosis: women with early menopause or those who have had an oophorectomy.

Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine

Background: Research on barriers to professional advancement for women in academic medicine has not adequately considered the role of environmental factors and how the structure of organizations affects professional advancement and work experiences. This article examines the impact of the hierarchy, including both the organization's hierarchical structure and professionals' perceptions of this structure, in medical school organization on faculty members' experience and advancement in academic medicine. Methods: As part of an inductive qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools, we interviewed 96 medical faculty at different career stages and in diverse specialties, using in-depth semistructured interviews, about their perceptions about and experiences in academic medicine. Data were coded and analysis was conducted in the grounded theory tradition. Results: Our respondents saw the hierarchy of chairs, based on the indeterminate tenure of department chairs, as a central characteristic of the structure of academic medicine. Many faculty saw this hierarchy as affecting inclusion, reducing transparency in decision making, and impeding advancement. Indeterminate chair terms lessen turnover and may create a bottleneck for advancement. Both men and women faculty perceived this hierarchy, but women saw it as more consequential. Conclusions: The hierarchical structure of academic medicine has a significant impact on faculty work experiences, including advancement, especially for women. We suggest that medical schools consider alternative models of leadership and managerial styles, including fixed terms for chairs with a greater emphasis on inclusion. This is a structural reform that could increase opportunities for advancement especially for women in academic medicine. © 2010 Copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.