Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Differences in de novo (dnMBC) and recurrent metastatic breast cancer (rMBC) presentation and survival over time have not been adequately described. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, 1990-2010, with follow up through 2015 of dnMBC patients (stage IV at diagnosis) and rMBC patients with subsequent distant metastatic recurrence (stage I-III initial diagnosis) [dnMBC = 247, rMBC = 911)]. Analysis included Chi squared tests of categorical variables, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox proportional adjusted hazard ratios (HzR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Disease specific survival (DSS) was time from diagnosis or distant recurrence to BC death. RESULTS: Over time, 1990-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2010, dnMBC incidence was constant (3%) and rMBC incidence decreased [18% to 7% (p < 0.001)] with no change in dnMBC hormone receptor (HR) or her2-neu (HER2) status but a decrease in rMBC HER2-positive cases and increase in triple negative breast cancer (HR-negative/HER2-negative) (p = 0.049). Five-year dnMBC DSS was 44% vs. 21% for rMBC (p < 0.001). Five-year dnMBC DSS improved over time [28% to 55% (p = 0.008)] and rMBC worsened [23% to 13%, p = 0.065)]. Worse DSS was associated with HR-negative status (HzR = 1.63; 1.41, 1.89), rMBC (HzR = 1.88; 1.58, 2.23), older age (70 +) (HzR = 1.88; 1.58, 2.24), > 1 distant metastases (HzR 1.39; 1.20, 1.62), and visceral dominant disease (HzR 1.22; 1.05, 1.43). After 1998, HER2-positive disease was associated with better DSS (HzR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with the widening survival gap and non-equivalence between dnMBC and rMBC and decreased rMBC incidence warrant further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malmgren et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: