Hurd, Thelma C.

Purpose The seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer differentiates patients with T1 tumors and lymph node micrometastases (stage IB) from patients with T1 tumors and negative nodes (stage IA). This study was undertaken to determine the utility of the stage IB designation. Patients and Methods The following two cohorts of patients with breast cancer were identified: 3,474 patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1993 to 2007 and 4,590 patients from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0010 trial. Clinicopathologic and outcomes data were recorded, and disease was staged according to the seventh edition AJCC staging system. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results Median follow-up times were 6.1 years and 9.0 years for the MD Anderson Cancer Center and ACOSOG cohorts, respectively. In both cohorts, there were no significant differences between patients with stage IA and stage IB disease in 5- or 10-year RFS, DSS, or OS. Estrogen receptor (ER) status and grade significantly stratified patients with stage I disease with respect to RFS, DSS, and OS. Conclusion Among patients with T1 breast cancer, individuals with micrometastases and those with negative nodes have similar survival outcomes. ER status and grade are better discriminants of survival than the presence of small-volume nodal metastases. In preparing the next edition of the AJCC staging system, consideration should be given to eliminating the stage IB designation and incorporating biologic factors.

Abstract Purpose: The stage IB designation was added to the AJCC 7th edition staging system to denote micrometastasis in patients with T1 tumors. We have previously examined this group and found that receptor status and nuclear grade were better survival discriminates than the presence of micrometastases. The current study was undertaken to validate this finding in a larger cohort from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0010 study. Methods: Clinicopathologic and outcomes data from patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0010 were recorded. All patients underwent breast conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy and whole breast radiation for clinical T1-2, N0 breast cancer. Sentinel lymph nodes were evaluated by H&E locally and if negative, by immunohistochemistry (IHC) at a central laboratory. Patients were staged according to the 7th edition AJCC system and recurrence-free (RFS), disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: There were 5210 eligible and evaluable patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0010. AJCC stage distribution was known in 4590 and included: 2849 (62.0%) stage IA, 376 (8.2%) stage IB, 878 (19.1%) stage IIA, 322 (7.0%) stage IIB, and 170 (3.7%) stage III. Median follow-up for the cohort was 9.0 years (range 0–12.6). Five and 10-year RFS, DSS and OS rates for patients with stage IA versus IB disease are shown in table 1. There were no significant differences between groups. When all stage I patients (stage IA and IB) were evaluated by ER status (positive vs negative) or grade (grade 1 vs 2 vs 3), these biologic factors were able to significantly discriminate patients with respect to RFS, DSS and OS (table 2). Conclusion: Differentiating patients with micrometastases (stage IB) from node negative patients (stage IA) does not stratify patients well with respect to survival. Biologic factors including ER status and grade are better discriminants of survival than the presence of small volume nodal metastases in patients with early stage breast cancer. Breast cancer staging should include biologic factors from the primary tumor. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-01-06.

BACKGROUNDTo ensure that National Institutes of Health‐funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.METHODSEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.RESULTSCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.CONCLUSIONSCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient‐level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.