Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Association of Radiotherapy With Survival in Women Treated for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Lumpectomy or Mastectomy

Association of Radiotherapy With Survival in Women Treated for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With... Key Points Question Is adjuvant radiation IMPORTANCE Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are treated with radiotherapy to reduce associated with a reduction in breast their risk of local invasive recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. However, the association of cancer mortality in patients treated for radiotherapy with breast cancer survival in patients with DCIS has not yet been clearly established. ductal carcinoma in situ? Findings Using a matched approach in OBJECTIVE To determine the extent to which radiotherapy is associated with reduced risk of breast a large cohort of patients treated for cancer mortality in a large cohort of patients treated for DCIS, using a propensity score–based ductal carcinoma in situ, treatment with matching approach. lumpectomy and radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study of women who had first primary DCIS risk of breast cancer–specific mortality diagnosed between 1998 and 2014 used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results compared with treatment with 18 registries database. Information on age and year of diagnosis, ethnicity, income, tumor size, tumor lumpectomy alone (hazard ratio, 0.77; grade, estrogen receptor status, all treatments (surgery and radiation), and outcomes (invasive local 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) or mastectomy recurrence and death from breast cancer) was abstracted for 140 366 women diagnosed with first alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65- primary DCIS. Three separate comparisons were performed using 1:1 matching: lumpectomy with 0.87). radiation vs lumpectomy alone; lumpectomy alone vs mastectomy; and lumpectomy with radiation vs mastectomy. Meaning Adjuvant radiation is associated with a small but significant EXPOSURES Use of radiotherapy and/or extent of surgery. breast cancer survival benefit in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ that cannot MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Crude and adjusted 15-year breast cancer–specific mortality. be accounted for by enhancing local control. RESULTS Of the 140 366 patients with DCIS in the cohort (109 712 [78.2%] white; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [12.3] years), 35 070 (25.0%) were treated with lumpectomy alone, 65 301 (46.5%) were Invited Commentary treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and 39 995 (28.5%) were treated with mastectomy. The actuarial 15-year breast cancer mortality rate was 2.33% for patients treated with lumpectomy alone, Supplemental content 1.74% for patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation, and 2.26% for patients treated with Author affiliations and article information are mastectomy. The adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88) for lumpectomy listed at the end of this article. and radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone (29 465 propensity-matched pairs), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-1.05) for mastectomy alone vs lumpectomy alone (20 832 propensity-matched pairs), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65-0.87) for lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs mastectomy (29 865 propensity-matched pairs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with DCIS, treatment with lumpectomy and radiotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with either lumpectomy alone or mastectomy alone. This suggests that the survival benefit of radiation is likely not due to local control, but rather to systemic effects. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. Corrected on August 16, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 Open Access. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 1/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Introduction Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to the histologic appearance of cancer cells within the breast ductule and/or lobule without evidence of cancer present beyond the basement membrane. This condition is generally identified in asymptomatic women in the context of screening mammography, and the incidence of DCIS in a population closely mirrors the extent of mammographic screening. In about 15% of cases of DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery, the woman will experience an in-breast invasive recurrence in the same breast within 15 years. In about 6% of cases, women with DCIS will develop a contralateral invasive breast cancer within 15 years. In about 3% of cases, women with DCIS will die of breast cancer within 15 years. The risk of death from breast cancer increases greatly after an in-breast invasive recurrence; however, about 50% of women who die of breast cancer after DCIS have no record of an invasive recurrence. The dual goals of treatment are to prevent invasive local recurrence and to reduce death from breast cancer. The risk of death from breast cancer for patients with DCIS is approximately the same for women treated with mastectomy as it is for those treated with lumpectomy without radiotherapy, despite the fact that women in the latter group experience many more local 3-7 recurrences. There is emerging evidence that, after a diagnosis of DCIS, the addition of radiotherapy to lumpectomy reduces the risk of death from breast cancer (as well as reducing the risk of local recurrence). Because of the low mortality associated with DCIS, it is difficult to study deaths from DCIS using small cohort studies or randomized trials. As a result, most clinical trials have been designed to study local recurrence. It is challenging to study mortality because the effect sizes are small and it is necessary to compare groups of women with similar risk profiles, ie, hazard ratios must be adjusted for variations in both pathologic features and treatments. We conducted a historical cohort study of women with pure DCIS (ie, without microinvasion) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We extracted data on age and year of diagnosis, tumor size, tumor grade, treatments (surgery and radiation), and outcomes (local invasive recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, and death from breast cancer). We sought to measure the extent to which radiotherapy is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer death in this cohort of women and to identify subgroups of women who might benefit from radiotherapy the most. Methods We used SEER*Stat statistical software version 8.3.4 to conduct a case-listing session and retrieved all cases of first primary DCIS (stage 0) diagnosed between 1998 and 2014 in the SEER 18 registries research database (November 2016 submission). We selected all cases with the American Joint Committee on Cancer primary tumor classification Tis (carcinoma in situ; no evidence of an invasive component). Among the cases classified as Tis, we excluded those associated with lobular carcinoma in situ, nonepithelial histologies, Paget disease of the nipple, or diffuse DCIS. We also excluded cases with unknown laterality, unknown or no surgical intervention on the primary tumor, and unknown radiation treatment status. Information on exclusions is provided in eTable 1 in the Supplement. Because patients cannot be identified, the research ethics board of the Women’s College Hospital exempted this study from review, and patient informed consent was not required. This article follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline for cohort studies. For each case, we retrieved information on the year of breast cancer diagnosis, age at diagnosis, ethnicity, household income, tumor laterality, tumor size, tumor grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor status, use of radiotherapy, use of chemotherapy, type of surgery, and cause of death. We assessed the vital status at the time of last follow-up. We extracted the information on survival time from the variable survival time months. The SEER*Stat program estimates survival time by subtracting the date of diagnosis from the date of last contact (the study cutoff). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 2/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS For each case we linked all additional cancer events that followed the DCIS diagnosis. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence was defined as the earliest new primary record that was an invasive breast cancer (stage I to IV) that occurred in the same breast as the DCIS. We retrieved all tumor characteristics and treatments for the ipsilateral invasive recurrence. We defined 3 time intervals: time from DCIS to end of follow-up, time from DCIS to ipsilateral invasive recurrence, and time from DCIS to contralateral invasive breast cancer. Outcome events were breast cancer–specific mortality, ipsilateral invasive recurrence, and contralateral invasive breast cancer, respectively. Study participants were categorized into 3 groups: mastectomy, lumpectomy without radiation, and lumpectomy with radiation. The groups were compared for a range of demographic, pathologic, and treatment variables and differences were evaluated using standardized differences. Matching We conducted 3 separate cohort comparisons using 1:1 matching: lumpectomy with radiation vs lumpectomy without radiation, lumpectomy without radiation vs mastectomy, and lumpectomy with radiation vs mastectomy. In each analysis, patients were matched on year of diagnosis (same year), age at diagnosis (within 2 years), tumor grade (I, II, III, or IV), ER status (positive, negative, or unknown), and propensity score. The propensity score took into account ethnicity, household income, tumor size, and progesterone receptor status. Caliper matching was done by matching participants who were within 0.2 times the standard deviation of their propensity score. A standardized difference of greater than 0.1 was considered a meaningful imbalance between comparison groups. Variable distributions for the matched cohorts are available in eTables 2, 3, and 4inthe Supplement. Statistical Analysis We estimated the crude cumulative breast cancer–specific mortality rates for the 3 treatment- matched subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated the crude rates for invasive local recurrence (from the date of diagnosis of DCIS to the date of ipsilateral invasive recurrence for the 3 treatment groups). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc). Patients were followed up from the date of DCIS until the outcome of interest, the end of follow-up, death from another cause, or loss to follow-up. Adjusted HRs were generated using a Cox proportional hazards model on the matched subgroups. Among all participants treated with lumpectomy, we conducted subgroup comparisons by age, ethnicity, ER status, tumor grade, and tumor size (using inverse probability of treatment weighting) to determine the extent to which radiation was associated with decreased risk of death in these various subgroups. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment–weighted estimates were truncated 10,11 at the 1st and 99th percentile. Breast cancer–specific mortality hazard rates were calculated for each year following DCIS diagnosis. We compared hazard rates for the entire 15-year interval assuming a proportional hazard and then for three 5-year subintervals (0-5 years, 5-10 years, and 10-15 years after diagnosis). In this analysis, the hazard rate was permitted to vary between intervals but was proportional within a given interval. A log-rank test was used to compare differences across groups with the Kaplan-Meier method. We generated 95% confidence limits for all HRs in the analysis. All P values were 2-tailed and statistically significant at a level of .05 or less. Results Among the 140 366 patients with DCIS in the cohort (109 712 [78.2%] white; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [12.3] years), 100 371 patients (71.5%) were treated with lumpectomy (35 070 [25.0%] with lumpectomy alone and 65 301 [46.5%] with lumpectomy and radiotherapy) and 39 995 patients JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 3/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS (28.5%) were treated with mastectomy (Table 1). The patients treated with mastectomy were slightly younger on average than those treated with lumpectomy (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [12.6] years vs 59.8 [12.0] years). The likelihood of having a mastectomy increased with tumor size and with tumor grade. Among the patients treated with lumpectomy, 65 301 (65%) received radiotherapy and 35 070 (35%) did not. Among these patients, those who received radiotherapy were on average 3.6 years younger than those who did not (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.1] years vs 62.1 [13.2] years) (Table 1). The use of radiotherapy also increased with increasing tumor grade. Radiotherapy was less commonly used for women with cancers of less than 1 cm (64%) than for women with larger cancers (72%). For all participants combined, the cumulative mortality from breast cancer at 15 years was 2.03% (annual rates provided in eTable 5 in the Supplement). The risk was 2.26% for participants treated with mastectomy and 1.94% for participants treated with lumpectomy. The actuarial 15-year mortality rate for women who had a mastectomy (2.26%) was similar to the rate for women who had lumpectomy without radiotherapy (2.33%). The adjusted HR for death for mastectomy vs lumpectomy alone (based on 20 832 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-1.05) (Table 2; eFigure 1 in the Supplement). Among patients treated with lumpectomy, the actuarial 15-year mortality rate was 25% less for those who received radiotherapy than for those who did not (1.74% vs 2.33%). The adjusted HR associated with radiotherapy (based on 29 465 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67- 0.88; P < .001) (Table 2 and the Figure). The adjusted HR for death associated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs mastectomy (based on 29 865 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65- 0.87; P < .001). The results of the adjusted analysis did not change substantially when competing risks of death were considered in the model (model 2 in eTable 6 in the Supplement) or when inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare treatment groups (model 3 in eTable 6 in the Supplement). In the matched lumpectomy cohort, radiotherapy was associated with an absolute reduction in local recurrences of 2.82% (eTable 7 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement) and a reduction in deaths from breast cancer of 0.27% (eTable 7 in the Supplement; Figure). In the matched comparison of patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs mastectomy, mastectomy was associated with an absolute reduction in local recurrences of 4.31% (eTable 8 and eFigure 3 in the Supplement) and an absolute increase in breast cancer deaths of 0.28% (eTable 8 and eFigure 4 in the Supplement). The protective effect of radiotherapy on mortality was measured for different subgroups of patients who underwent lumpectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting (Table 3). The HR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.43-0.80) for patients younger than 50 years and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73- 1.01) for patients aged 50 years and older. The HR was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87) for patients with ER-positive cancers, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.32-0.78) for patients with ER-negative cancers, and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.77-1.13) for patients with unknown ER status. The HR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.96) for black women and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) for white women. The HR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.27) for patients with low- or intermediate-grade tumors (grade I or II) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47-0.75) for patients with high-grade tumors (grade III or IV). In the matched cohort of patients who underwent lumpectomy, actuarial breast cancer mortality at 15 years was reduced by 0.27% with radiotherapy (from 2.05% to 1.78%). The difference was greater than this for women younger than 50 years (1.59%; from 3.06% to 1.47%), black women (0.87%; from 4.28% to 3.41%), and women with ER-negative cancers (0.57%; from 2.99% to 2.42%). On average, 370 women would need to be treated with radiotherapy to save 1 life. This count was fewer for black women (115 treated) and for women younger than 50 years (63 treated). We sought to better characterize the time-dependent effect of the association between radiotherapy and mortality. To do this, we divided the follow-up period into three 5-year intervals and constructed interval-specific hazard rates and HRs for the matched lumpectomy cohort (Table 4). The risk of dying of breast cancer increased with time since DCIS diagnosis, from 76.4 per 100 000 person-years in the first interval to 179.1 per 100 000 person-years in the third interval. In contrast, JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 4/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of All Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, According to Treatment Group No. (%) Lumpectomy Lumpectomy Plus Value Overall Alone Radiotherapy Mastectomy P Value Patients 140 366 (100) 35 070 (25.0) 65 301 (46.5) 39 995 (28.5) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 47 675 (34.0) 13 619 (38.8) 20 343 (31.2) 13 713 (34.3) 2005-2009 45 502 (32.4) 10 923 (31.1) 21 957 (33.6) 12 622 (31.6) <.001 2010-2014 47 189 (33.6) 10 528 (30.0) 23 001 (35.2) 13 660 (34.2) Age at diagnosis, y Mean (SD) 58.8 (12.3) 62.1 (13.2) 58.5 (11.1) 56.5 (12.6) <.001 Median (IQR) 58.0 (49.0-68.0) 61.0 (52.0-72.0) 58.0 (50.0-67.0) 55.0 (47.0-66.0) <.001 <40 4657 (3.3) 780 (2.2) 1414 (2.2) 2463 (6.2) 40-49 31 047 (22.1) 6114 (17.4) 14 014 (21.5) 10 919 (27.3) 50-59 40 338 (28.7) 8947 (25.5) 20 277 (31.1) 11 114 (27.8) <.001 60-69 34 504 (24.6) 8151 (23.2) 17 856 (27.3) 8497 (21.2) 70-79 22 116 (15.8) 7135 (20.3) 9733 (14.9) 5248 (13.1) ≥80 7704 (5.5) 3943 (11.2) 2007 (3.1) 1754 (4.4) Ethnicity White 109 712 (78.2) 27 765 (79.2) 51 261 (78.5) 30 686 (76.7) Black 14 904 (10.6) 3542 (10.1) 6910 (10.6) 4452 (11.1) East Asian 5983 (4.3) 1336 (3.8) 2915 (4.5) 1732 (4.3) <.001 Southeast Asian 5364 (3.8) 1183 (3.4) 2412 (3.7) 1769 (4.4) Other or unknown 4403 (3.1) 1244 (3.5) 1803 (2.8) 1356 (3.4) Annual household income, $ <30 000 38 844 (27.7) 8282 (23.6) 18 426 (28.2) 12 136 (30.3) 30 000-34 999 35 561 (25.3) 11 165 (31.8) 14 559 (22.3) 9837 (24.6) 35 000-39 999 27 795 (19.8) 6210 (17.7) 13 752 (21.1) 7833 (19.6) <.001 ≥40 000 38 153 (27.2) 9408 (26.8) 18 561 (28.4) 10 184 (25.5) Unknown 13 (0.0) 5 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 5 (0.0) Tumor grade I 16 620 (11.8) 6198 (17.7) 7166 (11.0) 3256 (8.1) II 48 404 (34.5) 13 259 (37.8) 22 859 (35.0) 12 286 (30.7) <.001 III or IV 53 597 (38.2) 8696 (24.8) 26 276 (40.2) 18 625 (46.6) Unknown 21 745 (15.5) 6917 (19.7) 9000 (13.8) 5828 (14.6) Tumor size, cm Mean (SD) 1.7 (2.1) 1.3 (2.0) 1.4 (1.5) 2.6 (2.7) <.001 Median (IQR) 1.1 (0.6-2.0) 0.8 (0.5-1.5) 1.0 (0.5-1.7) 1.8 (1.0-3.5) <.001 <1.0 42 267 (30.1) 12 861 (36.7) 22 381 (34.3) 7025 (17.6) 1.0-1.9 28 500 (20.3) 5814 (16.6) 15 208 (23.3) 7478 (18.7) 2.0-2.9 12 434 (8.9) 2094 (6.0) 5700 (8.7) 4640 (11.6) <.001 3.0-4.9 9263 (6.6) 1385 (3.9) 3450 (5.3) 4428 (11.1) ≥5.0 6823 (4.9) 874 (2.5) 1421 (2.2) 4528 (11.3) Unknown 41 079 (29.3) 12 042 (34.3) 17 141 (26.2) 11 896 (29.7) Estrogen receptor status Negative 13 823 (9.8) 2021 (5.8) 6576 (10.1) 5226 (13.1) Positive 77 023 (54.9) 17 050 (48.6) 39 242 (60.1) 20 731 (51.8) <.001 Unknown 49 520 (35.3) 15 999 (45.6) 19 483 (29.8) 14 038 (35.1) Progesterone receptor Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range. status Variables statistically different across all treatment Negative 21 482 (15.3) 3399 (9.7) 10 497 (16.1) 7586 (19.0) combinations. We used χ tests for categorical Positive 63 877 (45.5) 14 364 (41.0) 32 690 (50.1) 16 823 (42.1) <.001 variables and t tests and Mann-Whitney tests for Unknown 55 007 (39.2) 17 307 (49.3) 22 114 (33.9) 15 586 (39.0) continuous variables. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 5/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS the benefit of radiotherapy in terms of mortality reduction diminished with time; the hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.87) in the first interval and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.46) in the third interval. In the matched lumpectomy cohort, radiotherapy was also associated with a significant reduction in contralateral invasive breast cancers (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97). Discussion Among patients with DCIS treated with lumpectomy, adjuvant radiation was associated with a 23% reduced risk of dying of breast cancer; the cumulative mortality at 15 years was 2.33% for patients with DCIS treated with lumpectomy alone and 1.74% for women treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88; P < .001). The relative risk reduction in mortality of 23% is substantial, but the absolute risk reduction was only 0.27%, and it is doubtful whether a benefit of this size is large enough to warrant radiotherapy. It would be necessary to treat 370 women to save 1 life. The mortality benefit for black women was larger (1 death prevented for every 115 women treated), but the small size of this difference makes it difficult to personalize treatment. We believe that the mortality benefit is attributable to radiotherapy and not to a baseline imbalance in pathologic features or treatments; we used matching and propensity scoring to generate comparable groups (eTables 2-4 in the Supplement). Women who received radiation were younger, on average, and were more likely to have high-grade cancers than the women who did not receive radiation (Table 1), but these factors were accounted for in the matched analysis. In the 2010 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) overview of randomized trials evaluating radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with DCIS, radiotherapy decreased ipsilateral breast events by one-half (HR, 0.46; P < .001), but had no effect on breast cancer mortality (HR, 1.22; P > .1). Many population-based studies examining the various treatments in patients with DCIS have confirmed a reduction in local recurrences with local therapies (mastectomy vs 4-6,15 lumpectomy and lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone) ; however, most have 4-8,15,16 reported no significant difference in breast cancer mortality. Table 2. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation and Extent of Surgery in 1:1 Propensity-Matched Subgroups Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone 0.77 (0.67-0.88) <.001 Mastectomy vs lumpectomy alone 0.91 (0.78-1.05) .20 Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs mastectomy 0.75 (0.65-0.87) <.001 Figure. Breast Cancer–Specific Mortality After Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy 3.0 P =.03 (log-rank) Lumpectomy alone 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Lumpectomy and radiation 0.5 0 5 10 15 Time After Diagnosis, y No. at risk Lumpectomy alone 29 465 18 825 9291 1210 Lumpectomy and radiation 29 465 19 373 9689 1248 JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 6/11 Breast Cancer–Specific Mortality, % JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS In our previous analysis of the SEER DCIS cohort, we observed a nonsignificant decrease in breast cancer mortality associated with radiotherapy after lumpectomy (adjusted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) and a nonsignificant increase in breast cancer mortality associated with mastectomy compared with lumpectomy (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.50). The current analysis examines a larger cohort of patients, and we used a propensity score–based 1:1 matching approach to compare the treatment groups. This approach eliminates the potential influence of outliers in the data set. We report HRs similar in size to those of the previous study, but which now reach statistical significance (Table 2). In 2016, Sagara et al studied 32 144 lumpectomy-treated patients with DCIS diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 in the SEER database. In a multivariable analysis adjusted by patient age, Table 3. Hazard Ratios Associated With Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy vs Lumpectomy Alone for Various Patient Subgroups (Adjusted Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting) Subgroup Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value Estrogen receptor status Positive Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.67 (0.51-0.87) Negative Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.50 (0.32-0.78) Unknown Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.93 (0.77-1.13) Age at diagnosis, y <40 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.54 (0.26-1.09) 40-49 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.59 (0.42-0.84) 50-59 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.68 (0.50-0.92) ≥60 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.90 (0.74-1.09) Ethnicity White Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.83 (0.71-0.98) Black Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.69 (0.50-0.96) Tumor grade I Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 1.54 (0.94-2.53) II Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.87 (0.67-1.14) III or IV Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] <.001 Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.59 (0.47-0.75) Tumor size, cm <1.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.92 (0.68-1.24) 1.0-1.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.68 (0.50-0.92) 2.0-2.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.75 (0.47-1.21) 3.0-4.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.54 (0.27-1.06) ≥5.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] <.001 Global test for interaction statistically significant Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.20 (0.09-0.49) (P < .05). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 7/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS year, patient race, tumor size, and tumor grade, the HR for death associated with radiotherapy was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88). However, this study did not include patients treated with mastectomy; we show, to our knowledge for the first time, a survival benefit of lumpectomy plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87; P < .001) (Table 2). In theory, there are various mechanisms whereby radiation might reduce mortality in patients with DCIS. If radiation exerts its effect through local control, ie, if radiation prevents local recurrences, and if local recurrences are the source of metastases, then radiation should prevent some deaths. Elsewhere we have argued against this model. It is often stated, based on results of the EBCTCG 18,19 study of invasive breast cancer, that for every 4 local recurrences prevented, 1 death is prevented (radiation-prevented local recurrences and deaths in a ratio of 4 to 1). The association is insufficient to infer causality. In the present study, radiation after lumpectomy was associated with reductions in local recurrences by 2.82% and of deaths by 0.27%, ie, the ratio of local recurrences prevented to deaths prevented was approximately 10 to 1 (Figure; eTable 7 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement). However, we cannot infer that the decline in deaths was a consequence of avoiding recurrences because there is no direct evidence that the women who survived were those who avoided local recurrence. Moreover, in comparing the lumpectomy plus radiation cohort with the mastectomy cohort, we observed a marked decrease in local recurrences with mastectomy (4.31%), but an increase in deaths of 0.28% (eTable 8, eFigures 3 and 4 in the Supplement). If the salutary effect of radiation on mortality were effected through local control, we would expect to see the same effect (or a greater effect) with mastectomy. Similar results have been reported for patients with invasive cancer. In the 7 trials comparing mastectomy alone with lumpectomy and radiotherapy among women with node-negative invasive breast cancer, the rate ratio for local recurrence was 0.54 (P < .001) and the rate ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.98 (P = .80). Several studies in patients with early invasive breast cancer have shown that lumpectomy and radiotherapy combined are superior to mastectomy in terms of survival, 20-23 despite being less effective in terms of local control. These results support our conclusion that the survival benefits of radiotherapy seen in both patients with DCIS and patients with invasive breast cancer cannot be explained by improving local control. We must seek an alternative explanation, namely that radiation to the breast acts as a systemic therapy to eradicate subclinical latent metastases. If a patient dies of breast cancer following DCIS, it is reasonable to conclude that undetected metastatic deposits were present at the time of diagnosis, and that may lead to generalized metastatic clinical disease and death. Perhaps radiation induces an immune response or activates another defense mechanism, thereby preventing the emergence or expansion of subclinical metastatic clones. Possible considerations include radiation to the blood as it circulates through the breast, radiation to stromal elements in the breast matrix, and radiation scatter to tissues beyond the breast. These areas are deserving of future study. Support for the notion that local radiation induces systemic antitumor effects is the observation of a significant reduction in contralateral invasive breast cancers in the matched comparison of lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97) (eFigure 5 in the Supplement). A 2017 meta-analysis of all observational and randomized studies in patients with Table 4. Hazard Ratios for Mortality From Breast Cancer Associated With Time Period (Time From Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosis) in Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs Lumpectomy Alone Time Period, y Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value 0-5.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.71 (0.57-0.87) 5.1-10.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.72 (0.58-0.91) 10.1-15.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] .74 Global test for interaction not statistically significant Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 1.06 (0.77-1.46) (P = .31). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 8/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS DCIS reported an HR for radiotherapy on contralateral breast cancer of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.44-1.82). Future studies are required to more closely examine this association. This study of patients with DCIS is ideal, as fewer patients will receive chemotherapy or other systemic therapies that could affect risk. Limitations Our study has several inherent limitations. It has been acknowledged that the rates of local recurrence among patients with DCIS in SEER are lower than expected, but this should not affect the mortality results. We might have misclassified some of the cases of DCIS with microinvasion as pure DCIS. In the SEER database there are currently 13 cases of pure DCIS recorded for every case of DCIS with microinvasion. Including patients with DCIS with microinvasion should not affect the protective association with radiotherapy unless women with microinvasion were less likely to receive radiotherapy than those without microinvasion. Data were missing for many individuals for key variables, including tumor size, grade, and ER status. We did not have information on tamoxifen use. It has been reported that radiotherapy is underreported in the SEER database ; however, we do not think that there are false-positive reports of radiotherapy and we accept that the women who reported having radiotherapy were likely to have had it. Therefore, the effect of misclassification should be small. The treatments in the study population were not assigned at random, and there is always the possibility that the decision to undergo radiotherapy was associated with other favorable prognostic factors (latent confounding) related to the tumor, demographic factors, or the treatment itself. The matching process requires the exclusion of a significant proportion of the cohort; thus, the results may not be generalizable to all patients with DCIS. Conclusions Among patients with DCIS, treatment with lumpectomy and radiotherapy is associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with either lumpectomy alone or mastectomy. Although the clinical benefit is small, it is intriguing that radiotherapy has this effect, which appears to be attributable to systemic activity rather than local control. How exactly radiotherapy affects survival is an important question that should be explored in future studies. ARTICLE INFORMATION Accepted for Publication: May 12, 2018. Published: August 10, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 Correction: This article was corrected on August 16, 2019, to correct column headings in eTable 7 in the Supplement. Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Giannakeas Vetal. JAMA Network Open. Corresponding Author: Steven A. Narod, MD, Women’s College Research Institute, 76 Grenville St, Toronto, ON M5S 1B1, Canada (steven.narod@wchospital.ca). Author Affiliations: Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Giannakeas, Sopik, Narod); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Giannakeas, Narod); Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Sopik, Narod). Author Contributions: Mr Giannakeas and Dr Narod had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: All authors. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Giannakeas, Narod. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Giannakeas. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 9/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Administrative, technical, or material support: Giannakeas, Sopik. Supervision: Narod. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Giannakeas is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Frederick Banting and Charles Best Doctoral Research Award. Additional Contributions: Maria Eberg, MSc (Cancer Care Ontario), contributed to the review of the statistical methods and approach. No financial contribution was received by Ms Eberg. REFERENCES 1. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC; 2012. 2. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996;275(12):913-918. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530360023033 3. Elshof LE, Schaapveld M, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J. Subsequent risk of ipsilateral and contralateral invasive breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: incidence and the effect of radiotherapy in a population-based cohort of 10,090 women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(3):553-563. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3973-y 4. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):888-896. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510 5. Elshof LE, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, Schaapveld M. Cause-specific mortality in a population-based cohort of 9799 women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg. 2017;267(5):952-958. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002239 6. Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Second events following ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a register-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):929-938. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1531-1 7. Wadsten C, Garmo H, Fredriksson I, Sund M, Wärnberg F. Risk of death from breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2017;104(11):1506-1513. doi:10.1002/bjs.10589 8. Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, et al. Patient prognostic score and associations with survival improvement offered by radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based longitudinal cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(11):1190-1196. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.1869 9. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150-161. doi:10.1002/pst.433 10. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015; 34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607 11. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656-664. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn164 12. Sopik V, Sun P, Narod SA. Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;167(3):787-795. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4572-2 13. Walker GV, Giordano SH, Williams M, et al. Muddy water? variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(4):686-693. doi:10. 1016/j.ijrobp.2013.03.016 14. Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010 (41):162-177. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq039 15. Wärnberg F, Bergh J, Zack M, Holmberg L. Risk factors for subsequent invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death after ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based case-control study in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(5):495-499. 16. Qian GW, Ni XJ, Wang Z, Jiang YZ, Yu KD, Shao ZM. Effect of radiotherapy on survival of women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results population-based analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:1407-1418. 17. Narod SA, Sopik V. Is invasion a necessary step for metastases in breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169(1):9-23. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4644-3 18. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). 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. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707-1716. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2 JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 10/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS 19. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087-2106. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (05)67887-7 20. van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH, et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1158-1170. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30067-5 21. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Stankowski RV, Doi SA. Survival comparisons for breast conserving surgery and mastectomy revisited: community experience and the role of radiation therapy. Clin Med Res. 2015;13(2):65-73. doi:10.3121/cmr.2014.1245 22. Agarwal S, Pappas L, Neumayer L, Kokeny K, Agarwal J. Effect of breast conservation therapy vs mastectomy on disease-specific survival for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):267-274. doi:10.1001/ jamasurg.2013.3049 23. Hofvind S, Holen Å, Aas T, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Akslen LA. Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(10):1417-1422. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.07.002 24. Formenti SC, Demaria S. Local control by radiotherapy: is that all there is? Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(6):215. doi:10.1186/bcr2160 25. Wang L, Xia Y, Liu D, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of post-surgery adjuvant therapies used for ductal carcinoma in situ patients: a network meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79257-79269. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17366 SUPPLEMENT. eTable 1. Excluded Cases of Stage 0 Breast Cancer Identified in SEER From 1998 to 2014 eTable 2. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 3. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Mastectomy eTable 4. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation Versus Mastectomy eTable 5. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality Rates From DCIS Diagnosis for the Entire Cohort and According to Treatment Group (Mastectomy, Lumpectomy Alone, Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy) eTable 6. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation/Extent of Surgery Using Multivariate Cox Regression, Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting and 1:1 Propensity Score-Based Matching, With and Without Accounting for Competing Risks of Death Among Matched Subgroups eTable 7. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality And Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 8. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality and Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Mastectomy Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eFigure 1. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 2. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone eFigure 3. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 4. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 5. Contralateral Invasive Breast Cancer-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 11/11 Supplementary Online Content Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Narod SA. Association of radiotherapy with survival in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ with lumpectomy or mastectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 eTable 1. Excluded Cases of Stage 0 Breast Cancer Identified in SEER From 1998 to 2014 eTable 2. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 3. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Mastectomy eTable 4. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation Versus Mastectomy eTable 5. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality Rates From DCIS Diagnosis for the Entire Cohort and According to Treatment Group (Mastectomy, Lumpectomy Alone, Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy) eTable 6. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation/Extent of Surgery Using Multivariate Cox Regression, Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting and 1:1 Propensity Score-Based Matching, With and Without Accounting for Competing Risks of Death Among Matched Subgroups eTable 7. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality And Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 8. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality and Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Mastectomy Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eFigure 1. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 2. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone eFigure 3. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 4. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eFigure 5. Contralateral Invasive Breast Cancer-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity- Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone This supplementary material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work. © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 1. Excluded cases of stage 0 breast cancer identified in SEER from 1998 to Cumulative Cumulative Exclusion criteria Frequency Percent frequency percent 1. Prior cancers not in SEER 12,528 5.9 12,528 5.9 2. First primary is not Stage 0 breast cancer 25,519 12 38,047 17.9 3. Missing or no follow-up months 1,988 0.9 40,035 18.8 4. LCIS 23,146 10.9 63,181 29.7 5. Paget's disease 1,548 0.7 64,729 30.4 6. Unknown/invasive histology type 33 0 64,762 30.4 7. Unknown laterality 65 0 64,827 30.5 8. Did not undergo surgery 3,833 1.8 68,660 32.3 9. Unknown surgery 1,468 0.7 70,128 33 10. Unknown radiation treatment 2,213 1 72,341 34 Eligible for study 140,36666 212,707 100 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 2. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Value Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation Standardized difference Number of patients 29,465 (50.0%) 29,465 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 11,446 (38.8%) 11,446 (38.8%) 0 2005-2009 9,128 (31.0%) 9,128 (31.0%) 0 2010-2014 8,891 (30.2%) 8,891 (30.2%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 60.4 (11.8) 60.4 (11.8) 0 Median (IQR) 60.0 (51.0-70.0) 60.0 (51.0-69.0) Ethnicity White 23,473 (79.7%) 23,440 (79.6%) 0 Black 3,041 (10.3%) 3,043 (10.3%) 0 East Asian 1,155 (3.9%) 1,212 (4.1%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 1,057 (3.6%) 1,024 (3.5%) 0.01 Other/Unknown 739 (2.5%) 746 (2.5%) 0 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 35,522.1 (8,103.4) 35,425.7 (8,092.8) 0.01 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (30,340.0-40,610.0) 35,020.0 (29,710.0-40,610.0) Tumour grade I 4,639 (15.7%) 4,639 (15.7%) 0 II 11,569 (39.3%) 11,569 (39.3%) 0 III/IV 7,807 (26.5%) 7,807 (26.5%) 0 Unknown 5,450 (18.5%) 5,450 (18.5%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.2 (1.6) 1.3 (1.3) 0.01 Median (IQR) 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.9 (0.5-1.5) ER status Negative 1,538 (5.2%) 1,538 (5.2%) 0 Positive 15,368 (52.2%) 15,368 (52.2%) 0 Unknown 12,559 (42.6%) 12,559 (42.6%) 0 PR status Negative 2,854 (9.7%) 2,934 (10.0%) 0.01 Positive 12,966 (44.0%) 12,983 (44.1%) 0 Unknown 13,645 (46.3%) 13,548 (46.0%) 0.01 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 3. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus mastectomy Value Lumpectomy alone Mastectomy Standardized difference Number of patients 20,832 (50.0%) 20,832 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 8,115 (39.0%) 8,115 (39.0%) 0 2005-2009 6,531 (31.4%) 6,531 (31.4%) 0 2010-2014 6,186 (29.7%) 6,186 (29.7%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 59.1 (12.0) 59.0 (12.1) 0 Median (IQR) 58.0 (50.0-68.0) 58.0 (49.0-68.0) Ethnicity White 16,299 (78.2%) 16,262 (78.1%) 0 Black 2,211 (10.6%) 2,248 (10.8%) 0.01 East Asian 866 (4.2%) 843 (4.0%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 747 (3.6%) 798 (3.8%) 0.01 Other/Unknown 709 (3.4%) 681 (3.3%) 0.01 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 35,211.0 (8,236.8) 35,075.1 (8,228.1) 0.02 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (30,150.0- 34,970.0 (29,460.0- 40,610.0) 40,610.0) Tumour grade I 2,312 (11.1%) 2,312 (11.1%) 0 II 7,918 (38.0%) 7,918 (38.0%) 0 III/IV 6,761 (32.5%) 6,761 (32.5%) 0 Unknown 3,841 (18.4%) 3,841 (18.4%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.5 (2.1) 1.6 (1.8) 0.04 Median (IQR) 1.1 (0.5-2.0) 1.2 (0.6-2.0) ER status Negative 1,242 (6.0%) 1,242 (6.0%) 0 Positive 10,672 (51.2%) 10,672 (51.2%) 0 Unknown 8,918 (42.8%) 8,918 (42.8%) 0 PR status Negative 2,248 (10.8%) 2,361 (11.3%) 0.02 Positive 8,911 (42.8%) 8,818 (42.3%) 0.01 Unknown 9,673 (46.4%) 9,653 (46.3%) 0 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 4. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation versus mastectomy Value Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy Standardized difference Number of patients 29,865 (50.0%) 29,865 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 10,217 (34.2%) 10,217 (34.2%) 0 2005-2009 9,460 (31.7%) 9,460 (31.7%) 0 2010-2014 10,188 (34.1%) 10,188 (34.1%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 57.1 (11.3) 57.0 (11.3) 0 Median (IQR) 56.0 (48.0-65.0) 56.0 (48.0-65.0) Ethnicity White 23,238 (77.8%) 23,152 (77.5%) 0.01 Black 3,214 (10.8%) 3,227 (10.8%) 0 East Asian 1,277 (4.3%) 1,317 (4.4%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 1,216 (4.1%) 1,227 (4.1%) 0 Other/Unknown 920 (3.1%) 942 (3.2%) 0 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 34,909.9 (8,346.4) 34,850.1 (8,368.5) 0.01 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (28,200.0-40,610.0) 34,970.0 (28,500.0-40,610.0) Tumour grade I 2,441 (8.2%) 2,441 (8.2%) 0 II 9,957 (33.3%) 9,957 (33.3%) 0 III/IV 13,167 (44.1%) 13,167 (44.1%) 0 Unknown 4,300 (14.4%) 4,300 (14.4%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.7 (1.6) 1.7 (1.6) 0.04 Median (IQR) 1.3 (0.7-2.1) 1.5 (0.8-2.2) ER status Negative 2,970 (9.9%) 2,970 (9.9%) 0 Positive 16,521 (55.3%) 16,521 (55.3%) 0 Unknown 10,374 (34.7%) 10,374 (34.7%) 0 PR status Negative 4,782 (16.0%) 4,846 (16.2%) 0.01 Positive 13,554 (45.4%) 13,480 (45.1%) 0 Unknown 11,529 (38.6%) 11,539 (38.6%) 0 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 5. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis for the entire cohort and according to treatment group (mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, lumpectomy and radiotherapy) Year Complete DCIS Cohort Mastectomy Lumpectomy and radiation Lumpectomy alone FU time Events Ann. Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. (years) Rate Rate (years) (%) Rate (years) (%) Rate (years) (%) Rate (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Overall 986,201 1,104 0.112 - 280,835 359 0.128 - 452,365 403 0.089 - 253,001 342 0.135 - 0 - 1 134,429 45 0.033 0.033 38,270 16 0.042 0.042 62,614 14 0.022 0.022 33,545 15 0.045 0.045 1 - 2 123,463 74 0.060 0.093 35,046 28 0.080 0.122 57,508 22 0.038 0.061 30,909 24 0.078 0.122 2 - 3 113,060 85 0.075 0.168 32,036 24 0.075 0.197 52,592 29 0.055 0.116 28,431 32 0.113 0.235 3 - 4 102,368 109 0.106 0.275 28,986 34 0.117 0.314 47,514 38 0.080 0.196 25,868 37 0.143 0.378 4 - 5 91,818 119 0.130 0.404 25,965 35 0.135 0.448 42,487 41 0.097 0.292 23,366 43 0.184 0.561 5 - 6 81,451 113 0.139 0.542 22,936 44 0.192 0.639 37,666 38 0.101 0.393 20,849 31 0.149 0.710 6 - 7 70,964 97 0.137 0.678 19,931 34 0.171 0.808 32,753 35 0.107 0.500 18,280 28 0.153 0.863 7 - 8 61,225 100 0.163 0.840 17,218 33 0.192 0.999 28,021 40 0.143 0.642 15,986 27 0.169 1.031 8 - 9 52,022 87 0.167 1.006 14,737 30 0.204 1.200 23,522 31 0.132 0.774 13,763 26 0.189 1.220 9 - 10 43,694 70 0.160 1.165 12,508 18 0.144 1.342 19,489 32 0.164 0.938 11,696 20 0.171 1.391 10 - 11 35,629 64 0.180 1.342 10,318 17 0.165 1.505 15,704 29 0.185 1.122 9,606 18 0.187 1.578 11 - 12 28,051 49 0.175 1.515 8,258 19 0.230 1.731 12,175 20 0.164 1.286 7,619 10 0.131 1.709 12 - 13 20,879 42 0.201 1.713 6,298 10 0.159 1.887 8,903 17 0.191 1.477 5,677 15 0.264 1.973 13 - 14 14,078 23 0.163 1.873 4,256 11 0.258 2.141 5,949 7 0.118 1.594 3,873 5 0.129 2.101 14 - 15 8,031 13 0.162 2.032 2,481 3 0.121 2.259 3,338 5 0.150 1.744 2,213 5 0.226 2.327 15 - 16 3,894 13 0.334 2.359 1,215 2 0.165 2.420 1,656 5 0.302 2.045 1,022 6 0.587 2.913 16 - 17 1,145 1 0.087 2.445 376 1 0.266 2.680 473 - - 2.045 296 - - 2.913 Abbreviations: Ann., annual; Cum., cumulative © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 6. Hazard ratios associated with radiation/extent of surgery using multivariate cox regression, inverse probability treatment weighting and 1:1 propensity score-based matching, with and without accounting for competing risks of death among matched subgroups Comparison Model 1: matched Model 2: matched Model 3: inverse Model 4: multivariate Cox subgroups (non- subgroups (competing probability treatment regression** competing risks model) risks model)* weighting Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Lumpectomy alone 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lumpectomy + radiation 0.77 (0.67 - <.001 0.84 (0.74 – .008 0.79 (0.69 – .002 0.79 (0.68 – .002 0.88) 0.96) 0.91) 0.92) Lumpectomy alone 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mastectomy 0.91 (0.78 - .20 0.96 (0.83 – .52 0.90 (0.78 – .14 0.89 (0.76 – .15 1.05) 1.10) 1.04) 1.04) Mastectomy 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lumpectomy + radiation 0.75 (0.65 - <.001 0.79 (0.69 – <.001 0.78 (0.67 – <.001 0.81 (0.70 – .006 0.87) 0.91) 0.90) 0.94) *Model considers other non-breast cancer-specific deaths as competing risks **Adjusted for year of diagnosis (categorical), age at diagnosis (continuous), ethnicity, tumour grade, tumour size (continuous), ER-status and PR- status © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 7. Breast cancer-specific mortality and ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation eTable 7a. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 216,369 261 0.121 - 221,601 220 0.099 - 0 - 1 28,200 12 0.043 0.043 28,389 10 0.035 0.035 1 - 2 26,028 14 0.054 0.096 26,336 11 0.042 0.077 2 - 3 24,015 26 0.108 0.204 24,396 17 0.070 0.147 3 - 4 21,942 24 0.109 0.314 22,387 24 0.107 0.254 4 - 5 19,894 33 0.166 0.479 20,409 18 0.088 0.342 5 - 6 17,844 26 0.146 0.624 18,397 22 0.120 0.461 6 - 7 15,732 26 0.165 0.788 16,292 16 0.098 0.559 7 - 8 13,834 16 0.116 0.903 14,315 18 0.126 0.684 8 - 9 11,961 18 0.150 1.052 12,415 15 0.121 0.804 9 - 10 10,232 15 0.147 1.197 10,650 14 0.131 0.934 10 - 11 8,479 17 0.201 1.395 8,860 22 0.248 1.180 11 - 12 6,767 8 0.118 1.512 7,017 15 0.214 1.391 12 - 13 5,035 12 0.238 1.747 5,189 10 0.193 1.581 13 - 14 3,392 5 0.147 1.891 3,457 5 0.145 1.724 14 - 15 1,891 3 0.159 2.047 1,923 1 0.052 1.775 15 - 16 865 6 0.694 2.726 913 2 0.219 1.990 16 - 17 259 - - 2.726 255 - - 1.990 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 7b. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 210,819 1,162 0.551 - 219,292 565 0.258 - 0 - 1 28,141 140 0.498 0.498 28,380 11 0.039 0.039 1 - 2 25,834 152 0.588 1.083 26,311 34 0.129 0.168 2 - 3 23,699 120 0.506 1.584 24,328 52 0.214 0.381 3 - 4 21,547 122 0.566 2.141 22,281 52 0.233 0.614 4 - 5 19,435 107 0.551 2.680 20,270 43 0.212 0.825 5 - 6 17,338 96 0.554 3.219 18,227 58 0.318 1.140 6 - 7 15,200 98 0.645 3.843 16,093 38 0.236 1.374 7 - 8 13,313 67 0.503 4.327 14,099 50 0.355 1.723 8 - 9 11,470 62 0.541 4.844 12,184 43 0.353 2.070 9 - 10 9,747 61 0.626 5.439 10,416 47 0.451 2.512 10 - 11 8,031 41 0.511 5.922 8,628 41 0.475 2.975 11 - 12 6,385 31 0.485 6.379 6,801 35 0.515 3.475 12 - 13 4,723 25 0.529 6.874 5,010 22 0.439 3.899 13 - 14 3,166 19 0.600 7.433 3,318 23 0.693 4.565 14 - 15 1,761 12 0.682 8.064 1,837 13 0.708 5.240 15 - 16 795 8 1.006 8.989 865 3 0.347 5.569 16 - 17 235 1 0.426 9.376 243 - - 5.569 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 8. Breast cancer-specific mortality and ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation eTable 8a. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 213,227 207 0.097 - 210,580 254 0.121 - 0 - 1 28,717 7 0.024 0.024 28,606 12 0.042 0.042 1 - 2 26,427 8 0.030 0.055 26,202 22 0.084 0.126 2 - 3 24,183 15 0.062 0.117 23,952 19 0.079 0.205 3 - 4 21,924 25 0.114 0.231 21,684 22 0.101 0.306 4 - 5 19,700 16 0.081 0.312 19,475 22 0.113 0.419 5 - 6 17,531 15 0.086 0.397 17,266 31 0.180 0.598 6 - 7 15,304 24 0.157 0.553 15,014 24 0.160 0.757 7 - 8 13,290 21 0.158 0.710 12,975 27 0.208 0.963 8 - 9 11,360 17 0.150 0.859 11,092 21 0.189 1.151 9 - 10 9,629 17 0.177 1.034 9,413 10 0.106 1.256 10 - 11 7,999 12 0.150 1.182 7,802 13 0.167 1.420 11 - 12 6,383 11 0.172 1.353 6,255 13 0.208 1.625 12 - 13 4,760 7 0.147 1.498 4,756 6 0.126 1.749 13 - 14 3,188 5 0.157 1.652 3,162 7 0.221 1.967 14 - 15 1,748 2 0.114 1.765 1,805 2 0.111 2.075 15 - 16 843 5 0.593 2.347 853 2 0.235 2.305 16 - 17 243 - - 2.347 268 1 0.373 2.669 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 8b. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 210,816 621 0.295 - 209,409 240 0.115 - 0 - 1 28,707 18 0.063 0.063 28,570 38 0.133 0.133 1 - 2 26,395 42 0.159 0.222 26,153 14 0.054 0.186 2 - 3 24,105 51 0.212 0.433 23,888 27 0.113 0.299 3 - 4 21,798 64 0.294 0.725 21,602 25 0.116 0.415 4 - 5 19,541 55 0.281 1.005 19,381 26 0.134 0.548 5 - 6 17,337 61 0.352 1.353 17,159 23 0.134 0.682 6 - 7 15,093 46 0.305 1.654 14,902 24 0.161 0.842 7 - 8 13,070 50 0.383 2.030 12,863 24 0.187 1.027 8 - 9 11,126 55 0.494 2.514 10,985 15 0.137 1.162 9 - 10 9,395 40 0.426 2.929 9,310 8 0.086 1.247 10 - 11 7,777 38 0.489 3.403 7,712 6 0.078 1.323 11 - 12 6,174 33 0.534 3.920 6,182 4 0.065 1.387 12 - 13 4,579 25 0.546 4.444 4,699 1 0.021 1.408 13 - 14 3,045 26 0.854 5.260 3,122 2 0.064 1.471 14 - 15 1,660 11 0.663 5.888 1,778 2 0.112 1.582 15 - 16 791 6 0.758 6.602 840 1 0.119 1.699 16 - 17 223 - - 6.602 263 - - 1.699 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eFigure 1. Breast cancer-specific survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy alone vs. with mastectomy 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% Lumpectomy alone 98.0% Mastectomy 97.5% p = .43 (log-rank) 97.0% 0123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 20,832 13,338 6,513 846 Mastectomy 20,832 13,556 6,655 857 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 2. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence-free survival post-DCIS in propensity- matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with lumpectomy alone 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation 92% p < .001 (log-rank) 90% 0 12345 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 29,458 18,339 8,813 1,127 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,465 19,373 9,689 1,248 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 3. Breast cancer-specific survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with mastectomy 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% Lumpectomy and radiation 98.0% Mastectomy 97.5% p = .02 (log-rank) 97.0% 0 1234 56789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,865 18,551 8,735 1,143 Mastectomy 29,865 18,311 8,562 1,131 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 4. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence-free survival post-DCIS in propensity- matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with mastectomy 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy 92% p < .001 (log-rank) 90% 012 34567 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,864 18,376 8,509 1,080 Mastectomy 29,850 18,209 8,463 1,113 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 5. Contralateral invasive breast cancer-free survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with lumpectomy alone 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation 92% p = .01 (log-rank) 90% 012 34567 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 29,390 18,428 8,907 1,146 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,411 19,019 9,342 1,186 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Network Open American Medical Association

Association of Radiotherapy With Survival in Women Treated for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Lumpectomy or Mastectomy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/association-of-radiotherapy-with-survival-in-women-treated-for-ductal-E06tbRuAUp

References (53)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open.
eISSN
2574-3805
DOI
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Key Points Question Is adjuvant radiation IMPORTANCE Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are treated with radiotherapy to reduce associated with a reduction in breast their risk of local invasive recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. However, the association of cancer mortality in patients treated for radiotherapy with breast cancer survival in patients with DCIS has not yet been clearly established. ductal carcinoma in situ? Findings Using a matched approach in OBJECTIVE To determine the extent to which radiotherapy is associated with reduced risk of breast a large cohort of patients treated for cancer mortality in a large cohort of patients treated for DCIS, using a propensity score–based ductal carcinoma in situ, treatment with matching approach. lumpectomy and radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study of women who had first primary DCIS risk of breast cancer–specific mortality diagnosed between 1998 and 2014 used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results compared with treatment with 18 registries database. Information on age and year of diagnosis, ethnicity, income, tumor size, tumor lumpectomy alone (hazard ratio, 0.77; grade, estrogen receptor status, all treatments (surgery and radiation), and outcomes (invasive local 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) or mastectomy recurrence and death from breast cancer) was abstracted for 140 366 women diagnosed with first alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65- primary DCIS. Three separate comparisons were performed using 1:1 matching: lumpectomy with 0.87). radiation vs lumpectomy alone; lumpectomy alone vs mastectomy; and lumpectomy with radiation vs mastectomy. Meaning Adjuvant radiation is associated with a small but significant EXPOSURES Use of radiotherapy and/or extent of surgery. breast cancer survival benefit in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ that cannot MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Crude and adjusted 15-year breast cancer–specific mortality. be accounted for by enhancing local control. RESULTS Of the 140 366 patients with DCIS in the cohort (109 712 [78.2%] white; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [12.3] years), 35 070 (25.0%) were treated with lumpectomy alone, 65 301 (46.5%) were Invited Commentary treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and 39 995 (28.5%) were treated with mastectomy. The actuarial 15-year breast cancer mortality rate was 2.33% for patients treated with lumpectomy alone, Supplemental content 1.74% for patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation, and 2.26% for patients treated with Author affiliations and article information are mastectomy. The adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88) for lumpectomy listed at the end of this article. and radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone (29 465 propensity-matched pairs), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-1.05) for mastectomy alone vs lumpectomy alone (20 832 propensity-matched pairs), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65-0.87) for lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs mastectomy (29 865 propensity-matched pairs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with DCIS, treatment with lumpectomy and radiotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with either lumpectomy alone or mastectomy alone. This suggests that the survival benefit of radiation is likely not due to local control, but rather to systemic effects. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. Corrected on August 16, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 Open Access. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 1/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Introduction Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to the histologic appearance of cancer cells within the breast ductule and/or lobule without evidence of cancer present beyond the basement membrane. This condition is generally identified in asymptomatic women in the context of screening mammography, and the incidence of DCIS in a population closely mirrors the extent of mammographic screening. In about 15% of cases of DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery, the woman will experience an in-breast invasive recurrence in the same breast within 15 years. In about 6% of cases, women with DCIS will develop a contralateral invasive breast cancer within 15 years. In about 3% of cases, women with DCIS will die of breast cancer within 15 years. The risk of death from breast cancer increases greatly after an in-breast invasive recurrence; however, about 50% of women who die of breast cancer after DCIS have no record of an invasive recurrence. The dual goals of treatment are to prevent invasive local recurrence and to reduce death from breast cancer. The risk of death from breast cancer for patients with DCIS is approximately the same for women treated with mastectomy as it is for those treated with lumpectomy without radiotherapy, despite the fact that women in the latter group experience many more local 3-7 recurrences. There is emerging evidence that, after a diagnosis of DCIS, the addition of radiotherapy to lumpectomy reduces the risk of death from breast cancer (as well as reducing the risk of local recurrence). Because of the low mortality associated with DCIS, it is difficult to study deaths from DCIS using small cohort studies or randomized trials. As a result, most clinical trials have been designed to study local recurrence. It is challenging to study mortality because the effect sizes are small and it is necessary to compare groups of women with similar risk profiles, ie, hazard ratios must be adjusted for variations in both pathologic features and treatments. We conducted a historical cohort study of women with pure DCIS (ie, without microinvasion) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We extracted data on age and year of diagnosis, tumor size, tumor grade, treatments (surgery and radiation), and outcomes (local invasive recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, and death from breast cancer). We sought to measure the extent to which radiotherapy is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer death in this cohort of women and to identify subgroups of women who might benefit from radiotherapy the most. Methods We used SEER*Stat statistical software version 8.3.4 to conduct a case-listing session and retrieved all cases of first primary DCIS (stage 0) diagnosed between 1998 and 2014 in the SEER 18 registries research database (November 2016 submission). We selected all cases with the American Joint Committee on Cancer primary tumor classification Tis (carcinoma in situ; no evidence of an invasive component). Among the cases classified as Tis, we excluded those associated with lobular carcinoma in situ, nonepithelial histologies, Paget disease of the nipple, or diffuse DCIS. We also excluded cases with unknown laterality, unknown or no surgical intervention on the primary tumor, and unknown radiation treatment status. Information on exclusions is provided in eTable 1 in the Supplement. Because patients cannot be identified, the research ethics board of the Women’s College Hospital exempted this study from review, and patient informed consent was not required. This article follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline for cohort studies. For each case, we retrieved information on the year of breast cancer diagnosis, age at diagnosis, ethnicity, household income, tumor laterality, tumor size, tumor grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor status, use of radiotherapy, use of chemotherapy, type of surgery, and cause of death. We assessed the vital status at the time of last follow-up. We extracted the information on survival time from the variable survival time months. The SEER*Stat program estimates survival time by subtracting the date of diagnosis from the date of last contact (the study cutoff). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 2/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS For each case we linked all additional cancer events that followed the DCIS diagnosis. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence was defined as the earliest new primary record that was an invasive breast cancer (stage I to IV) that occurred in the same breast as the DCIS. We retrieved all tumor characteristics and treatments for the ipsilateral invasive recurrence. We defined 3 time intervals: time from DCIS to end of follow-up, time from DCIS to ipsilateral invasive recurrence, and time from DCIS to contralateral invasive breast cancer. Outcome events were breast cancer–specific mortality, ipsilateral invasive recurrence, and contralateral invasive breast cancer, respectively. Study participants were categorized into 3 groups: mastectomy, lumpectomy without radiation, and lumpectomy with radiation. The groups were compared for a range of demographic, pathologic, and treatment variables and differences were evaluated using standardized differences. Matching We conducted 3 separate cohort comparisons using 1:1 matching: lumpectomy with radiation vs lumpectomy without radiation, lumpectomy without radiation vs mastectomy, and lumpectomy with radiation vs mastectomy. In each analysis, patients were matched on year of diagnosis (same year), age at diagnosis (within 2 years), tumor grade (I, II, III, or IV), ER status (positive, negative, or unknown), and propensity score. The propensity score took into account ethnicity, household income, tumor size, and progesterone receptor status. Caliper matching was done by matching participants who were within 0.2 times the standard deviation of their propensity score. A standardized difference of greater than 0.1 was considered a meaningful imbalance between comparison groups. Variable distributions for the matched cohorts are available in eTables 2, 3, and 4inthe Supplement. Statistical Analysis We estimated the crude cumulative breast cancer–specific mortality rates for the 3 treatment- matched subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated the crude rates for invasive local recurrence (from the date of diagnosis of DCIS to the date of ipsilateral invasive recurrence for the 3 treatment groups). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc). Patients were followed up from the date of DCIS until the outcome of interest, the end of follow-up, death from another cause, or loss to follow-up. Adjusted HRs were generated using a Cox proportional hazards model on the matched subgroups. Among all participants treated with lumpectomy, we conducted subgroup comparisons by age, ethnicity, ER status, tumor grade, and tumor size (using inverse probability of treatment weighting) to determine the extent to which radiation was associated with decreased risk of death in these various subgroups. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment–weighted estimates were truncated 10,11 at the 1st and 99th percentile. Breast cancer–specific mortality hazard rates were calculated for each year following DCIS diagnosis. We compared hazard rates for the entire 15-year interval assuming a proportional hazard and then for three 5-year subintervals (0-5 years, 5-10 years, and 10-15 years after diagnosis). In this analysis, the hazard rate was permitted to vary between intervals but was proportional within a given interval. A log-rank test was used to compare differences across groups with the Kaplan-Meier method. We generated 95% confidence limits for all HRs in the analysis. All P values were 2-tailed and statistically significant at a level of .05 or less. Results Among the 140 366 patients with DCIS in the cohort (109 712 [78.2%] white; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [12.3] years), 100 371 patients (71.5%) were treated with lumpectomy (35 070 [25.0%] with lumpectomy alone and 65 301 [46.5%] with lumpectomy and radiotherapy) and 39 995 patients JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 3/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS (28.5%) were treated with mastectomy (Table 1). The patients treated with mastectomy were slightly younger on average than those treated with lumpectomy (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [12.6] years vs 59.8 [12.0] years). The likelihood of having a mastectomy increased with tumor size and with tumor grade. Among the patients treated with lumpectomy, 65 301 (65%) received radiotherapy and 35 070 (35%) did not. Among these patients, those who received radiotherapy were on average 3.6 years younger than those who did not (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.1] years vs 62.1 [13.2] years) (Table 1). The use of radiotherapy also increased with increasing tumor grade. Radiotherapy was less commonly used for women with cancers of less than 1 cm (64%) than for women with larger cancers (72%). For all participants combined, the cumulative mortality from breast cancer at 15 years was 2.03% (annual rates provided in eTable 5 in the Supplement). The risk was 2.26% for participants treated with mastectomy and 1.94% for participants treated with lumpectomy. The actuarial 15-year mortality rate for women who had a mastectomy (2.26%) was similar to the rate for women who had lumpectomy without radiotherapy (2.33%). The adjusted HR for death for mastectomy vs lumpectomy alone (based on 20 832 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.78-1.05) (Table 2; eFigure 1 in the Supplement). Among patients treated with lumpectomy, the actuarial 15-year mortality rate was 25% less for those who received radiotherapy than for those who did not (1.74% vs 2.33%). The adjusted HR associated with radiotherapy (based on 29 465 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67- 0.88; P < .001) (Table 2 and the Figure). The adjusted HR for death associated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs mastectomy (based on 29 865 propensity-matched pairs) was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65- 0.87; P < .001). The results of the adjusted analysis did not change substantially when competing risks of death were considered in the model (model 2 in eTable 6 in the Supplement) or when inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare treatment groups (model 3 in eTable 6 in the Supplement). In the matched lumpectomy cohort, radiotherapy was associated with an absolute reduction in local recurrences of 2.82% (eTable 7 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement) and a reduction in deaths from breast cancer of 0.27% (eTable 7 in the Supplement; Figure). In the matched comparison of patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs mastectomy, mastectomy was associated with an absolute reduction in local recurrences of 4.31% (eTable 8 and eFigure 3 in the Supplement) and an absolute increase in breast cancer deaths of 0.28% (eTable 8 and eFigure 4 in the Supplement). The protective effect of radiotherapy on mortality was measured for different subgroups of patients who underwent lumpectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting (Table 3). The HR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.43-0.80) for patients younger than 50 years and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73- 1.01) for patients aged 50 years and older. The HR was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87) for patients with ER-positive cancers, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.32-0.78) for patients with ER-negative cancers, and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.77-1.13) for patients with unknown ER status. The HR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.96) for black women and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) for white women. The HR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.27) for patients with low- or intermediate-grade tumors (grade I or II) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47-0.75) for patients with high-grade tumors (grade III or IV). In the matched cohort of patients who underwent lumpectomy, actuarial breast cancer mortality at 15 years was reduced by 0.27% with radiotherapy (from 2.05% to 1.78%). The difference was greater than this for women younger than 50 years (1.59%; from 3.06% to 1.47%), black women (0.87%; from 4.28% to 3.41%), and women with ER-negative cancers (0.57%; from 2.99% to 2.42%). On average, 370 women would need to be treated with radiotherapy to save 1 life. This count was fewer for black women (115 treated) and for women younger than 50 years (63 treated). We sought to better characterize the time-dependent effect of the association between radiotherapy and mortality. To do this, we divided the follow-up period into three 5-year intervals and constructed interval-specific hazard rates and HRs for the matched lumpectomy cohort (Table 4). The risk of dying of breast cancer increased with time since DCIS diagnosis, from 76.4 per 100 000 person-years in the first interval to 179.1 per 100 000 person-years in the third interval. In contrast, JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 4/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of All Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, According to Treatment Group No. (%) Lumpectomy Lumpectomy Plus Value Overall Alone Radiotherapy Mastectomy P Value Patients 140 366 (100) 35 070 (25.0) 65 301 (46.5) 39 995 (28.5) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 47 675 (34.0) 13 619 (38.8) 20 343 (31.2) 13 713 (34.3) 2005-2009 45 502 (32.4) 10 923 (31.1) 21 957 (33.6) 12 622 (31.6) <.001 2010-2014 47 189 (33.6) 10 528 (30.0) 23 001 (35.2) 13 660 (34.2) Age at diagnosis, y Mean (SD) 58.8 (12.3) 62.1 (13.2) 58.5 (11.1) 56.5 (12.6) <.001 Median (IQR) 58.0 (49.0-68.0) 61.0 (52.0-72.0) 58.0 (50.0-67.0) 55.0 (47.0-66.0) <.001 <40 4657 (3.3) 780 (2.2) 1414 (2.2) 2463 (6.2) 40-49 31 047 (22.1) 6114 (17.4) 14 014 (21.5) 10 919 (27.3) 50-59 40 338 (28.7) 8947 (25.5) 20 277 (31.1) 11 114 (27.8) <.001 60-69 34 504 (24.6) 8151 (23.2) 17 856 (27.3) 8497 (21.2) 70-79 22 116 (15.8) 7135 (20.3) 9733 (14.9) 5248 (13.1) ≥80 7704 (5.5) 3943 (11.2) 2007 (3.1) 1754 (4.4) Ethnicity White 109 712 (78.2) 27 765 (79.2) 51 261 (78.5) 30 686 (76.7) Black 14 904 (10.6) 3542 (10.1) 6910 (10.6) 4452 (11.1) East Asian 5983 (4.3) 1336 (3.8) 2915 (4.5) 1732 (4.3) <.001 Southeast Asian 5364 (3.8) 1183 (3.4) 2412 (3.7) 1769 (4.4) Other or unknown 4403 (3.1) 1244 (3.5) 1803 (2.8) 1356 (3.4) Annual household income, $ <30 000 38 844 (27.7) 8282 (23.6) 18 426 (28.2) 12 136 (30.3) 30 000-34 999 35 561 (25.3) 11 165 (31.8) 14 559 (22.3) 9837 (24.6) 35 000-39 999 27 795 (19.8) 6210 (17.7) 13 752 (21.1) 7833 (19.6) <.001 ≥40 000 38 153 (27.2) 9408 (26.8) 18 561 (28.4) 10 184 (25.5) Unknown 13 (0.0) 5 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 5 (0.0) Tumor grade I 16 620 (11.8) 6198 (17.7) 7166 (11.0) 3256 (8.1) II 48 404 (34.5) 13 259 (37.8) 22 859 (35.0) 12 286 (30.7) <.001 III or IV 53 597 (38.2) 8696 (24.8) 26 276 (40.2) 18 625 (46.6) Unknown 21 745 (15.5) 6917 (19.7) 9000 (13.8) 5828 (14.6) Tumor size, cm Mean (SD) 1.7 (2.1) 1.3 (2.0) 1.4 (1.5) 2.6 (2.7) <.001 Median (IQR) 1.1 (0.6-2.0) 0.8 (0.5-1.5) 1.0 (0.5-1.7) 1.8 (1.0-3.5) <.001 <1.0 42 267 (30.1) 12 861 (36.7) 22 381 (34.3) 7025 (17.6) 1.0-1.9 28 500 (20.3) 5814 (16.6) 15 208 (23.3) 7478 (18.7) 2.0-2.9 12 434 (8.9) 2094 (6.0) 5700 (8.7) 4640 (11.6) <.001 3.0-4.9 9263 (6.6) 1385 (3.9) 3450 (5.3) 4428 (11.1) ≥5.0 6823 (4.9) 874 (2.5) 1421 (2.2) 4528 (11.3) Unknown 41 079 (29.3) 12 042 (34.3) 17 141 (26.2) 11 896 (29.7) Estrogen receptor status Negative 13 823 (9.8) 2021 (5.8) 6576 (10.1) 5226 (13.1) Positive 77 023 (54.9) 17 050 (48.6) 39 242 (60.1) 20 731 (51.8) <.001 Unknown 49 520 (35.3) 15 999 (45.6) 19 483 (29.8) 14 038 (35.1) Progesterone receptor Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range. status Variables statistically different across all treatment Negative 21 482 (15.3) 3399 (9.7) 10 497 (16.1) 7586 (19.0) combinations. We used χ tests for categorical Positive 63 877 (45.5) 14 364 (41.0) 32 690 (50.1) 16 823 (42.1) <.001 variables and t tests and Mann-Whitney tests for Unknown 55 007 (39.2) 17 307 (49.3) 22 114 (33.9) 15 586 (39.0) continuous variables. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 5/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS the benefit of radiotherapy in terms of mortality reduction diminished with time; the hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.87) in the first interval and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.46) in the third interval. In the matched lumpectomy cohort, radiotherapy was also associated with a significant reduction in contralateral invasive breast cancers (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97). Discussion Among patients with DCIS treated with lumpectomy, adjuvant radiation was associated with a 23% reduced risk of dying of breast cancer; the cumulative mortality at 15 years was 2.33% for patients with DCIS treated with lumpectomy alone and 1.74% for women treated with lumpectomy and radiotherapy (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88; P < .001). The relative risk reduction in mortality of 23% is substantial, but the absolute risk reduction was only 0.27%, and it is doubtful whether a benefit of this size is large enough to warrant radiotherapy. It would be necessary to treat 370 women to save 1 life. The mortality benefit for black women was larger (1 death prevented for every 115 women treated), but the small size of this difference makes it difficult to personalize treatment. We believe that the mortality benefit is attributable to radiotherapy and not to a baseline imbalance in pathologic features or treatments; we used matching and propensity scoring to generate comparable groups (eTables 2-4 in the Supplement). Women who received radiation were younger, on average, and were more likely to have high-grade cancers than the women who did not receive radiation (Table 1), but these factors were accounted for in the matched analysis. In the 2010 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) overview of randomized trials evaluating radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with DCIS, radiotherapy decreased ipsilateral breast events by one-half (HR, 0.46; P < .001), but had no effect on breast cancer mortality (HR, 1.22; P > .1). Many population-based studies examining the various treatments in patients with DCIS have confirmed a reduction in local recurrences with local therapies (mastectomy vs 4-6,15 lumpectomy and lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone) ; however, most have 4-8,15,16 reported no significant difference in breast cancer mortality. Table 2. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation and Extent of Surgery in 1:1 Propensity-Matched Subgroups Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone 0.77 (0.67-0.88) <.001 Mastectomy vs lumpectomy alone 0.91 (0.78-1.05) .20 Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy vs mastectomy 0.75 (0.65-0.87) <.001 Figure. Breast Cancer–Specific Mortality After Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy 3.0 P =.03 (log-rank) Lumpectomy alone 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Lumpectomy and radiation 0.5 0 5 10 15 Time After Diagnosis, y No. at risk Lumpectomy alone 29 465 18 825 9291 1210 Lumpectomy and radiation 29 465 19 373 9689 1248 JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 6/11 Breast Cancer–Specific Mortality, % JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS In our previous analysis of the SEER DCIS cohort, we observed a nonsignificant decrease in breast cancer mortality associated with radiotherapy after lumpectomy (adjusted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04) and a nonsignificant increase in breast cancer mortality associated with mastectomy compared with lumpectomy (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.50). The current analysis examines a larger cohort of patients, and we used a propensity score–based 1:1 matching approach to compare the treatment groups. This approach eliminates the potential influence of outliers in the data set. We report HRs similar in size to those of the previous study, but which now reach statistical significance (Table 2). In 2016, Sagara et al studied 32 144 lumpectomy-treated patients with DCIS diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 in the SEER database. In a multivariable analysis adjusted by patient age, Table 3. Hazard Ratios Associated With Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy vs Lumpectomy Alone for Various Patient Subgroups (Adjusted Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting) Subgroup Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value Estrogen receptor status Positive Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.67 (0.51-0.87) Negative Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.50 (0.32-0.78) Unknown Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.93 (0.77-1.13) Age at diagnosis, y <40 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.54 (0.26-1.09) 40-49 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.59 (0.42-0.84) 50-59 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.68 (0.50-0.92) ≥60 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.90 (0.74-1.09) Ethnicity White Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.83 (0.71-0.98) Black Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.69 (0.50-0.96) Tumor grade I Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 1.54 (0.94-2.53) II Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.87 (0.67-1.14) III or IV Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] <.001 Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.59 (0.47-0.75) Tumor size, cm <1.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.92 (0.68-1.24) 1.0-1.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.68 (0.50-0.92) 2.0-2.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.75 (0.47-1.21) 3.0-4.9 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.54 (0.27-1.06) ≥5.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] <.001 Global test for interaction statistically significant Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.20 (0.09-0.49) (P < .05). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 7/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS year, patient race, tumor size, and tumor grade, the HR for death associated with radiotherapy was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88). However, this study did not include patients treated with mastectomy; we show, to our knowledge for the first time, a survival benefit of lumpectomy plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87; P < .001) (Table 2). In theory, there are various mechanisms whereby radiation might reduce mortality in patients with DCIS. If radiation exerts its effect through local control, ie, if radiation prevents local recurrences, and if local recurrences are the source of metastases, then radiation should prevent some deaths. Elsewhere we have argued against this model. It is often stated, based on results of the EBCTCG 18,19 study of invasive breast cancer, that for every 4 local recurrences prevented, 1 death is prevented (radiation-prevented local recurrences and deaths in a ratio of 4 to 1). The association is insufficient to infer causality. In the present study, radiation after lumpectomy was associated with reductions in local recurrences by 2.82% and of deaths by 0.27%, ie, the ratio of local recurrences prevented to deaths prevented was approximately 10 to 1 (Figure; eTable 7 and eFigure 2 in the Supplement). However, we cannot infer that the decline in deaths was a consequence of avoiding recurrences because there is no direct evidence that the women who survived were those who avoided local recurrence. Moreover, in comparing the lumpectomy plus radiation cohort with the mastectomy cohort, we observed a marked decrease in local recurrences with mastectomy (4.31%), but an increase in deaths of 0.28% (eTable 8, eFigures 3 and 4 in the Supplement). If the salutary effect of radiation on mortality were effected through local control, we would expect to see the same effect (or a greater effect) with mastectomy. Similar results have been reported for patients with invasive cancer. In the 7 trials comparing mastectomy alone with lumpectomy and radiotherapy among women with node-negative invasive breast cancer, the rate ratio for local recurrence was 0.54 (P < .001) and the rate ratio for breast cancer mortality was 0.98 (P = .80). Several studies in patients with early invasive breast cancer have shown that lumpectomy and radiotherapy combined are superior to mastectomy in terms of survival, 20-23 despite being less effective in terms of local control. These results support our conclusion that the survival benefits of radiotherapy seen in both patients with DCIS and patients with invasive breast cancer cannot be explained by improving local control. We must seek an alternative explanation, namely that radiation to the breast acts as a systemic therapy to eradicate subclinical latent metastases. If a patient dies of breast cancer following DCIS, it is reasonable to conclude that undetected metastatic deposits were present at the time of diagnosis, and that may lead to generalized metastatic clinical disease and death. Perhaps radiation induces an immune response or activates another defense mechanism, thereby preventing the emergence or expansion of subclinical metastatic clones. Possible considerations include radiation to the blood as it circulates through the breast, radiation to stromal elements in the breast matrix, and radiation scatter to tissues beyond the breast. These areas are deserving of future study. Support for the notion that local radiation induces systemic antitumor effects is the observation of a significant reduction in contralateral invasive breast cancers in the matched comparison of lumpectomy and radiotherapy vs lumpectomy alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97) (eFigure 5 in the Supplement). A 2017 meta-analysis of all observational and randomized studies in patients with Table 4. Hazard Ratios for Mortality From Breast Cancer Associated With Time Period (Time From Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosis) in Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs Lumpectomy Alone Time Period, y Comparison Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P Value 0-5.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.71 (0.57-0.87) 5.1-10.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 0.72 (0.58-0.91) 10.1-15.0 Lumpectomy alone 1 [Reference] .74 Global test for interaction not statistically significant Lumpectomy plus radiotherapy 1.06 (0.77-1.46) (P = .31). JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 8/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS DCIS reported an HR for radiotherapy on contralateral breast cancer of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.44-1.82). Future studies are required to more closely examine this association. This study of patients with DCIS is ideal, as fewer patients will receive chemotherapy or other systemic therapies that could affect risk. Limitations Our study has several inherent limitations. It has been acknowledged that the rates of local recurrence among patients with DCIS in SEER are lower than expected, but this should not affect the mortality results. We might have misclassified some of the cases of DCIS with microinvasion as pure DCIS. In the SEER database there are currently 13 cases of pure DCIS recorded for every case of DCIS with microinvasion. Including patients with DCIS with microinvasion should not affect the protective association with radiotherapy unless women with microinvasion were less likely to receive radiotherapy than those without microinvasion. Data were missing for many individuals for key variables, including tumor size, grade, and ER status. We did not have information on tamoxifen use. It has been reported that radiotherapy is underreported in the SEER database ; however, we do not think that there are false-positive reports of radiotherapy and we accept that the women who reported having radiotherapy were likely to have had it. Therefore, the effect of misclassification should be small. The treatments in the study population were not assigned at random, and there is always the possibility that the decision to undergo radiotherapy was associated with other favorable prognostic factors (latent confounding) related to the tumor, demographic factors, or the treatment itself. The matching process requires the exclusion of a significant proportion of the cohort; thus, the results may not be generalizable to all patients with DCIS. Conclusions Among patients with DCIS, treatment with lumpectomy and radiotherapy is associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with either lumpectomy alone or mastectomy. Although the clinical benefit is small, it is intriguing that radiotherapy has this effect, which appears to be attributable to systemic activity rather than local control. How exactly radiotherapy affects survival is an important question that should be explored in future studies. ARTICLE INFORMATION Accepted for Publication: May 12, 2018. Published: August 10, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 Correction: This article was corrected on August 16, 2019, to correct column headings in eTable 7 in the Supplement. Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Giannakeas Vetal. JAMA Network Open. Corresponding Author: Steven A. Narod, MD, Women’s College Research Institute, 76 Grenville St, Toronto, ON M5S 1B1, Canada (steven.narod@wchospital.ca). Author Affiliations: Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Giannakeas, Sopik, Narod); Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Giannakeas, Narod); Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Sopik, Narod). Author Contributions: Mr Giannakeas and Dr Narod had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: All authors. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Giannakeas, Narod. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Giannakeas. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 9/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS Administrative, technical, or material support: Giannakeas, Sopik. Supervision: Narod. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Giannakeas is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Frederick Banting and Charles Best Doctoral Research Award. Additional Contributions: Maria Eberg, MSc (Cancer Care Ontario), contributed to the review of the statistical methods and approach. No financial contribution was received by Ms Eberg. REFERENCES 1. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC; 2012. 2. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA. 1996;275(12):913-918. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530360023033 3. Elshof LE, Schaapveld M, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J. Subsequent risk of ipsilateral and contralateral invasive breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: incidence and the effect of radiotherapy in a population-based cohort of 10,090 women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(3):553-563. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3973-y 4. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):888-896. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510 5. Elshof LE, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, Schaapveld M. Cause-specific mortality in a population-based cohort of 9799 women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg. 2017;267(5):952-958. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002239 6. Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Second events following ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a register-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):929-938. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1531-1 7. Wadsten C, Garmo H, Fredriksson I, Sund M, Wärnberg F. Risk of death from breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2017;104(11):1506-1513. doi:10.1002/bjs.10589 8. Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, et al. Patient prognostic score and associations with survival improvement offered by radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based longitudinal cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(11):1190-1196. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.1869 9. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150-161. doi:10.1002/pst.433 10. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015; 34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607 11. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656-664. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn164 12. Sopik V, Sun P, Narod SA. Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;167(3):787-795. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4572-2 13. Walker GV, Giordano SH, Williams M, et al. Muddy water? variation in reporting receipt of breast cancer radiation therapy by population-based tumor registries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(4):686-693. doi:10. 1016/j.ijrobp.2013.03.016 14. Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010 (41):162-177. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq039 15. Wärnberg F, Bergh J, Zack M, Holmberg L. Risk factors for subsequent invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death after ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based case-control study in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(5):495-499. 16. Qian GW, Ni XJ, Wang Z, Jiang YZ, Yu KD, Shao ZM. Effect of radiotherapy on survival of women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results population-based analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:1407-1418. 17. Narod SA, Sopik V. Is invasion a necessary step for metastases in breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169(1):9-23. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4644-3 18. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). 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. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707-1716. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2 JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 10/11 JAMA Network Open | Oncology Association of Radiotherapy With Survival After Lumpectomy or Mastectomy for DCIS 19. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087-2106. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (05)67887-7 20. van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH, et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1158-1170. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30067-5 21. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Stankowski RV, Doi SA. Survival comparisons for breast conserving surgery and mastectomy revisited: community experience and the role of radiation therapy. Clin Med Res. 2015;13(2):65-73. doi:10.3121/cmr.2014.1245 22. Agarwal S, Pappas L, Neumayer L, Kokeny K, Agarwal J. Effect of breast conservation therapy vs mastectomy on disease-specific survival for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):267-274. doi:10.1001/ jamasurg.2013.3049 23. Hofvind S, Holen Å, Aas T, Roman M, Sebuødegård S, Akslen LA. Women treated with breast conserving surgery do better than those with mastectomy independent of detection mode, prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(10):1417-1422. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.07.002 24. Formenti SC, Demaria S. Local control by radiotherapy: is that all there is? Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(6):215. doi:10.1186/bcr2160 25. Wang L, Xia Y, Liu D, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of post-surgery adjuvant therapies used for ductal carcinoma in situ patients: a network meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79257-79269. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17366 SUPPLEMENT. eTable 1. Excluded Cases of Stage 0 Breast Cancer Identified in SEER From 1998 to 2014 eTable 2. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 3. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Mastectomy eTable 4. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation Versus Mastectomy eTable 5. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality Rates From DCIS Diagnosis for the Entire Cohort and According to Treatment Group (Mastectomy, Lumpectomy Alone, Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy) eTable 6. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation/Extent of Surgery Using Multivariate Cox Regression, Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting and 1:1 Propensity Score-Based Matching, With and Without Accounting for Competing Risks of Death Among Matched Subgroups eTable 7. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality And Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 8. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality and Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Mastectomy Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eFigure 1. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 2. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone eFigure 3. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 4. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 5. Contralateral Invasive Breast Cancer-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 (Reprinted) August 10, 2018 11/11 Supplementary Online Content Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Narod SA. Association of radiotherapy with survival in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ with lumpectomy or mastectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181100. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1100 eTable 1. Excluded Cases of Stage 0 Breast Cancer Identified in SEER From 1998 to 2014 eTable 2. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 3. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Mastectomy eTable 4. Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation Versus Mastectomy eTable 5. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality Rates From DCIS Diagnosis for the Entire Cohort and According to Treatment Group (Mastectomy, Lumpectomy Alone, Lumpectomy and Radiotherapy) eTable 6. Hazard Ratios Associated With Radiation/Extent of Surgery Using Multivariate Cox Regression, Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting and 1:1 Propensity Score-Based Matching, With and Without Accounting for Competing Risks of Death Among Matched Subgroups eTable 7. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality And Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eTable 8. Breast Cancer-Specific Mortality and Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence Rates From DCIS Diagnosis Among Matched DCIS Patients Treated With Mastectomy Versus Lumpectomy and Radiation eFigure 1. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy Alone vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 2. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone eFigure 3. Breast Cancer-Specific Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy eFigure 4. Ipsilateral Invasive Recurrence-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity-Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Mastectomy © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eFigure 5. Contralateral Invasive Breast Cancer-Free Survival Post-DCIS in Propensity- Matched Patients Treated With Lumpectomy and Radiation vs. With Lumpectomy Alone This supplementary material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work. © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 1. Excluded cases of stage 0 breast cancer identified in SEER from 1998 to Cumulative Cumulative Exclusion criteria Frequency Percent frequency percent 1. Prior cancers not in SEER 12,528 5.9 12,528 5.9 2. First primary is not Stage 0 breast cancer 25,519 12 38,047 17.9 3. Missing or no follow-up months 1,988 0.9 40,035 18.8 4. LCIS 23,146 10.9 63,181 29.7 5. Paget's disease 1,548 0.7 64,729 30.4 6. Unknown/invasive histology type 33 0 64,762 30.4 7. Unknown laterality 65 0 64,827 30.5 8. Did not undergo surgery 3,833 1.8 68,660 32.3 9. Unknown surgery 1,468 0.7 70,128 33 10. Unknown radiation treatment 2,213 1 72,341 34 Eligible for study 140,36666 212,707 100 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 2. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Value Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation Standardized difference Number of patients 29,465 (50.0%) 29,465 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 11,446 (38.8%) 11,446 (38.8%) 0 2005-2009 9,128 (31.0%) 9,128 (31.0%) 0 2010-2014 8,891 (30.2%) 8,891 (30.2%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 60.4 (11.8) 60.4 (11.8) 0 Median (IQR) 60.0 (51.0-70.0) 60.0 (51.0-69.0) Ethnicity White 23,473 (79.7%) 23,440 (79.6%) 0 Black 3,041 (10.3%) 3,043 (10.3%) 0 East Asian 1,155 (3.9%) 1,212 (4.1%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 1,057 (3.6%) 1,024 (3.5%) 0.01 Other/Unknown 739 (2.5%) 746 (2.5%) 0 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 35,522.1 (8,103.4) 35,425.7 (8,092.8) 0.01 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (30,340.0-40,610.0) 35,020.0 (29,710.0-40,610.0) Tumour grade I 4,639 (15.7%) 4,639 (15.7%) 0 II 11,569 (39.3%) 11,569 (39.3%) 0 III/IV 7,807 (26.5%) 7,807 (26.5%) 0 Unknown 5,450 (18.5%) 5,450 (18.5%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.2 (1.6) 1.3 (1.3) 0.01 Median (IQR) 0.8 (0.4-1.5) 0.9 (0.5-1.5) ER status Negative 1,538 (5.2%) 1,538 (5.2%) 0 Positive 15,368 (52.2%) 15,368 (52.2%) 0 Unknown 12,559 (42.6%) 12,559 (42.6%) 0 PR status Negative 2,854 (9.7%) 2,934 (10.0%) 0.01 Positive 12,966 (44.0%) 12,983 (44.1%) 0 Unknown 13,645 (46.3%) 13,548 (46.0%) 0.01 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 3. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus mastectomy Value Lumpectomy alone Mastectomy Standardized difference Number of patients 20,832 (50.0%) 20,832 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 8,115 (39.0%) 8,115 (39.0%) 0 2005-2009 6,531 (31.4%) 6,531 (31.4%) 0 2010-2014 6,186 (29.7%) 6,186 (29.7%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 59.1 (12.0) 59.0 (12.1) 0 Median (IQR) 58.0 (50.0-68.0) 58.0 (49.0-68.0) Ethnicity White 16,299 (78.2%) 16,262 (78.1%) 0 Black 2,211 (10.6%) 2,248 (10.8%) 0.01 East Asian 866 (4.2%) 843 (4.0%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 747 (3.6%) 798 (3.8%) 0.01 Other/Unknown 709 (3.4%) 681 (3.3%) 0.01 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 35,211.0 (8,236.8) 35,075.1 (8,228.1) 0.02 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (30,150.0- 34,970.0 (29,460.0- 40,610.0) 40,610.0) Tumour grade I 2,312 (11.1%) 2,312 (11.1%) 0 II 7,918 (38.0%) 7,918 (38.0%) 0 III/IV 6,761 (32.5%) 6,761 (32.5%) 0 Unknown 3,841 (18.4%) 3,841 (18.4%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.5 (2.1) 1.6 (1.8) 0.04 Median (IQR) 1.1 (0.5-2.0) 1.2 (0.6-2.0) ER status Negative 1,242 (6.0%) 1,242 (6.0%) 0 Positive 10,672 (51.2%) 10,672 (51.2%) 0 Unknown 8,918 (42.8%) 8,918 (42.8%) 0 PR status Negative 2,248 (10.8%) 2,361 (11.3%) 0.02 Positive 8,911 (42.8%) 8,818 (42.3%) 0.01 Unknown 9,673 (46.4%) 9,653 (46.3%) 0 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 4. Matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation versus mastectomy Value Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy Standardized difference Number of patients 29,865 (50.0%) 29,865 (50.0%) Year of diagnosis 1998-2004 10,217 (34.2%) 10,217 (34.2%) 0 2005-2009 9,460 (31.7%) 9,460 (31.7%) 0 2010-2014 10,188 (34.1%) 10,188 (34.1%) 0 Age at diagnosis Mean (SD) 57.1 (11.3) 57.0 (11.3) 0 Median (IQR) 56.0 (48.0-65.0) 56.0 (48.0-65.0) Ethnicity White 23,238 (77.8%) 23,152 (77.5%) 0.01 Black 3,214 (10.8%) 3,227 (10.8%) 0 East Asian 1,277 (4.3%) 1,317 (4.4%) 0.01 Southeast Asian 1,216 (4.1%) 1,227 (4.1%) 0 Other/Unknown 920 (3.1%) 942 (3.2%) 0 Annual household income, $ Mean (SD) 34,909.9 (8,346.4) 34,850.1 (8,368.5) 0.01 Median (IQR) 34,970.0 (28,200.0-40,610.0) 34,970.0 (28,500.0-40,610.0) Tumour grade I 2,441 (8.2%) 2,441 (8.2%) 0 II 9,957 (33.3%) 9,957 (33.3%) 0 III/IV 13,167 (44.1%) 13,167 (44.1%) 0 Unknown 4,300 (14.4%) 4,300 (14.4%) 0 Tumour size Mean (SD) 1.7 (1.6) 1.7 (1.6) 0.04 Median (IQR) 1.3 (0.7-2.1) 1.5 (0.8-2.2) ER status Negative 2,970 (9.9%) 2,970 (9.9%) 0 Positive 16,521 (55.3%) 16,521 (55.3%) 0 Unknown 10,374 (34.7%) 10,374 (34.7%) 0 PR status Negative 4,782 (16.0%) 4,846 (16.2%) 0.01 Positive 13,554 (45.4%) 13,480 (45.1%) 0 Unknown 11,529 (38.6%) 11,539 (38.6%) 0 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 5. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis for the entire cohort and according to treatment group (mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, lumpectomy and radiotherapy) Year Complete DCIS Cohort Mastectomy Lumpectomy and radiation Lumpectomy alone FU time Events Ann. Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. FU time Events Rate Cum. (years) Rate Rate (years) (%) Rate (years) (%) Rate (years) (%) Rate (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Overall 986,201 1,104 0.112 - 280,835 359 0.128 - 452,365 403 0.089 - 253,001 342 0.135 - 0 - 1 134,429 45 0.033 0.033 38,270 16 0.042 0.042 62,614 14 0.022 0.022 33,545 15 0.045 0.045 1 - 2 123,463 74 0.060 0.093 35,046 28 0.080 0.122 57,508 22 0.038 0.061 30,909 24 0.078 0.122 2 - 3 113,060 85 0.075 0.168 32,036 24 0.075 0.197 52,592 29 0.055 0.116 28,431 32 0.113 0.235 3 - 4 102,368 109 0.106 0.275 28,986 34 0.117 0.314 47,514 38 0.080 0.196 25,868 37 0.143 0.378 4 - 5 91,818 119 0.130 0.404 25,965 35 0.135 0.448 42,487 41 0.097 0.292 23,366 43 0.184 0.561 5 - 6 81,451 113 0.139 0.542 22,936 44 0.192 0.639 37,666 38 0.101 0.393 20,849 31 0.149 0.710 6 - 7 70,964 97 0.137 0.678 19,931 34 0.171 0.808 32,753 35 0.107 0.500 18,280 28 0.153 0.863 7 - 8 61,225 100 0.163 0.840 17,218 33 0.192 0.999 28,021 40 0.143 0.642 15,986 27 0.169 1.031 8 - 9 52,022 87 0.167 1.006 14,737 30 0.204 1.200 23,522 31 0.132 0.774 13,763 26 0.189 1.220 9 - 10 43,694 70 0.160 1.165 12,508 18 0.144 1.342 19,489 32 0.164 0.938 11,696 20 0.171 1.391 10 - 11 35,629 64 0.180 1.342 10,318 17 0.165 1.505 15,704 29 0.185 1.122 9,606 18 0.187 1.578 11 - 12 28,051 49 0.175 1.515 8,258 19 0.230 1.731 12,175 20 0.164 1.286 7,619 10 0.131 1.709 12 - 13 20,879 42 0.201 1.713 6,298 10 0.159 1.887 8,903 17 0.191 1.477 5,677 15 0.264 1.973 13 - 14 14,078 23 0.163 1.873 4,256 11 0.258 2.141 5,949 7 0.118 1.594 3,873 5 0.129 2.101 14 - 15 8,031 13 0.162 2.032 2,481 3 0.121 2.259 3,338 5 0.150 1.744 2,213 5 0.226 2.327 15 - 16 3,894 13 0.334 2.359 1,215 2 0.165 2.420 1,656 5 0.302 2.045 1,022 6 0.587 2.913 16 - 17 1,145 1 0.087 2.445 376 1 0.266 2.680 473 - - 2.045 296 - - 2.913 Abbreviations: Ann., annual; Cum., cumulative © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 6. Hazard ratios associated with radiation/extent of surgery using multivariate cox regression, inverse probability treatment weighting and 1:1 propensity score-based matching, with and without accounting for competing risks of death among matched subgroups Comparison Model 1: matched Model 2: matched Model 3: inverse Model 4: multivariate Cox subgroups (non- subgroups (competing probability treatment regression** competing risks model) risks model)* weighting Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value Hazard Ratio P-value (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Lumpectomy alone 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lumpectomy + radiation 0.77 (0.67 - <.001 0.84 (0.74 – .008 0.79 (0.69 – .002 0.79 (0.68 – .002 0.88) 0.96) 0.91) 0.92) Lumpectomy alone 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mastectomy 0.91 (0.78 - .20 0.96 (0.83 – .52 0.90 (0.78 – .14 0.89 (0.76 – .15 1.05) 1.10) 1.04) 1.04) Mastectomy 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lumpectomy + radiation 0.75 (0.65 - <.001 0.79 (0.69 – <.001 0.78 (0.67 – <.001 0.81 (0.70 – .006 0.87) 0.91) 0.90) 0.94) *Model considers other non-breast cancer-specific deaths as competing risks **Adjusted for year of diagnosis (categorical), age at diagnosis (continuous), ethnicity, tumour grade, tumour size (continuous), ER-status and PR- status © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 7. Breast cancer-specific mortality and ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation eTable 7a. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 216,369 261 0.121 - 221,601 220 0.099 - 0 - 1 28,200 12 0.043 0.043 28,389 10 0.035 0.035 1 - 2 26,028 14 0.054 0.096 26,336 11 0.042 0.077 2 - 3 24,015 26 0.108 0.204 24,396 17 0.070 0.147 3 - 4 21,942 24 0.109 0.314 22,387 24 0.107 0.254 4 - 5 19,894 33 0.166 0.479 20,409 18 0.088 0.342 5 - 6 17,844 26 0.146 0.624 18,397 22 0.120 0.461 6 - 7 15,732 26 0.165 0.788 16,292 16 0.098 0.559 7 - 8 13,834 16 0.116 0.903 14,315 18 0.126 0.684 8 - 9 11,961 18 0.150 1.052 12,415 15 0.121 0.804 9 - 10 10,232 15 0.147 1.197 10,650 14 0.131 0.934 10 - 11 8,479 17 0.201 1.395 8,860 22 0.248 1.180 11 - 12 6,767 8 0.118 1.512 7,017 15 0.214 1.391 12 - 13 5,035 12 0.238 1.747 5,189 10 0.193 1.581 13 - 14 3,392 5 0.147 1.891 3,457 5 0.145 1.724 14 - 15 1,891 3 0.159 2.047 1,923 1 0.052 1.775 15 - 16 865 6 0.694 2.726 913 2 0.219 1.990 16 - 17 259 - - 2.726 255 - - 1.990 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 7b. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with lumpectomy alone versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 210,819 1,162 0.551 - 219,292 565 0.258 - 0 - 1 28,141 140 0.498 0.498 28,380 11 0.039 0.039 1 - 2 25,834 152 0.588 1.083 26,311 34 0.129 0.168 2 - 3 23,699 120 0.506 1.584 24,328 52 0.214 0.381 3 - 4 21,547 122 0.566 2.141 22,281 52 0.233 0.614 4 - 5 19,435 107 0.551 2.680 20,270 43 0.212 0.825 5 - 6 17,338 96 0.554 3.219 18,227 58 0.318 1.140 6 - 7 15,200 98 0.645 3.843 16,093 38 0.236 1.374 7 - 8 13,313 67 0.503 4.327 14,099 50 0.355 1.723 8 - 9 11,470 62 0.541 4.844 12,184 43 0.353 2.070 9 - 10 9,747 61 0.626 5.439 10,416 47 0.451 2.512 10 - 11 8,031 41 0.511 5.922 8,628 41 0.475 2.975 11 - 12 6,385 31 0.485 6.379 6,801 35 0.515 3.475 12 - 13 4,723 25 0.529 6.874 5,010 22 0.439 3.899 13 - 14 3,166 19 0.600 7.433 3,318 23 0.693 4.565 14 - 15 1,761 12 0.682 8.064 1,837 13 0.708 5.240 15 - 16 795 8 1.006 8.989 865 3 0.347 5.569 16 - 17 235 1 0.426 9.376 243 - - 5.569 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 8. Breast cancer-specific mortality and ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation eTable 8a. Breast cancer-specific mortality rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 213,227 207 0.097 - 210,580 254 0.121 - 0 - 1 28,717 7 0.024 0.024 28,606 12 0.042 0.042 1 - 2 26,427 8 0.030 0.055 26,202 22 0.084 0.126 2 - 3 24,183 15 0.062 0.117 23,952 19 0.079 0.205 3 - 4 21,924 25 0.114 0.231 21,684 22 0.101 0.306 4 - 5 19,700 16 0.081 0.312 19,475 22 0.113 0.419 5 - 6 17,531 15 0.086 0.397 17,266 31 0.180 0.598 6 - 7 15,304 24 0.157 0.553 15,014 24 0.160 0.757 7 - 8 13,290 21 0.158 0.710 12,975 27 0.208 0.963 8 - 9 11,360 17 0.150 0.859 11,092 21 0.189 1.151 9 - 10 9,629 17 0.177 1.034 9,413 10 0.106 1.256 10 - 11 7,999 12 0.150 1.182 7,802 13 0.167 1.420 11 - 12 6,383 11 0.172 1.353 6,255 13 0.208 1.625 12 - 13 4,760 7 0.147 1.498 4,756 6 0.126 1.749 13 - 14 3,188 5 0.157 1.652 3,162 7 0.221 1.967 14 - 15 1,748 2 0.114 1.765 1,805 2 0.111 2.075 15 - 16 843 5 0.593 2.347 853 2 0.235 2.305 16 - 17 243 - - 2.347 268 1 0.373 2.669 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eTable 8b. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence rates from DCIS diagnosis among matched DCIS patients treated with mastectomy versus lumpectomy and radiation Year Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) FU time (years) Events Rate (%) Cumulative Rate (%) Overall 210,816 621 0.295 - 209,409 240 0.115 - 0 - 1 28,707 18 0.063 0.063 28,570 38 0.133 0.133 1 - 2 26,395 42 0.159 0.222 26,153 14 0.054 0.186 2 - 3 24,105 51 0.212 0.433 23,888 27 0.113 0.299 3 - 4 21,798 64 0.294 0.725 21,602 25 0.116 0.415 4 - 5 19,541 55 0.281 1.005 19,381 26 0.134 0.548 5 - 6 17,337 61 0.352 1.353 17,159 23 0.134 0.682 6 - 7 15,093 46 0.305 1.654 14,902 24 0.161 0.842 7 - 8 13,070 50 0.383 2.030 12,863 24 0.187 1.027 8 - 9 11,126 55 0.494 2.514 10,985 15 0.137 1.162 9 - 10 9,395 40 0.426 2.929 9,310 8 0.086 1.247 10 - 11 7,777 38 0.489 3.403 7,712 6 0.078 1.323 11 - 12 6,174 33 0.534 3.920 6,182 4 0.065 1.387 12 - 13 4,579 25 0.546 4.444 4,699 1 0.021 1.408 13 - 14 3,045 26 0.854 5.260 3,122 2 0.064 1.471 14 - 15 1,660 11 0.663 5.888 1,778 2 0.112 1.582 15 - 16 791 6 0.758 6.602 840 1 0.119 1.699 16 - 17 223 - - 6.602 263 - - 1.699 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. eFigure 1. Breast cancer-specific survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy alone vs. with mastectomy 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% Lumpectomy alone 98.0% Mastectomy 97.5% p = .43 (log-rank) 97.0% 0123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 20,832 13,338 6,513 846 Mastectomy 20,832 13,556 6,655 857 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 2. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence-free survival post-DCIS in propensity- matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with lumpectomy alone 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation 92% p < .001 (log-rank) 90% 0 12345 6789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 29,458 18,339 8,813 1,127 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,465 19,373 9,689 1,248 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 3. Breast cancer-specific survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with mastectomy 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% Lumpectomy and radiation 98.0% Mastectomy 97.5% p = .02 (log-rank) 97.0% 0 1234 56789 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,865 18,551 8,735 1,143 Mastectomy 29,865 18,311 8,562 1,131 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 4. Ipsilateral invasive recurrence-free survival post-DCIS in propensity- matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with mastectomy 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy and radiation Mastectomy 92% p < .001 (log-rank) 90% 012 34567 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,864 18,376 8,509 1,080 Mastectomy 29,850 18,209 8,463 1,113 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival eFigure 5. Contralateral invasive breast cancer-free survival post-DCIS in propensity-matched patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation vs. with lumpectomy alone 100% 98% 96% 94% Lumpectomy alone Lumpectomy and radiation 92% p = .01 (log-rank) 90% 012 34567 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 Years after DCIS diagnosis Number at risk 0 5 10 15 Lumpectomy alone 29,390 18,428 8,907 1,146 Lumpectomy and radiation 29,411 19,019 9,342 1,186 © 2018 Giannakeas V et al. JAMA Network Open. Survival

Journal

JAMA Network OpenAmerican Medical Association

Published: Aug 10, 2018

There are no references for this article.