Ascertaining Prognosis for Breast Cancer in Node-Negative Patients with Innovative Survival Analysis
- 5 January 2006
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in The Breast Journal
- Vol. 12 (1) , 37-47
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122x.2006.00183.x
Abstract
Clinical decisions to administer adjuvant systemic therapy to women with early breast cancer require knowledge about baseline prognosis, which is only assessable in the absence of such adjuvant treatment, which most patients currently do receive. The Cox model is the standard tool for assessing the effect of prognostic factors; however, there may be substantive differences in the estimated prognosis obtained by the Cox model rather than a log‐normal model. For more than 50 years, clinical breast cancer data for cohorts of patients have supported the choice of a log‐normal model. The prognostic impact of model type is examined here for a cohort of breast cancer patients, only 7% of whom received adjuvant systemic therapy. We quantitated prognosis utilizing Kaplan–Meier, Cox, and log‐normal survival analyses for 415 consecutive T1–T3, M0, histologically node‐negative patients who were operated on for primary breast cancer at Women's College Hospital between 1977 and 1986. Recurrence outside the breast for disease‐free interval (DFI) and breast cancer death for disease‐specific survival (DSS) were the events of interest. The patient follow‐up for these investigations was 96% complete: a median 8 years for those surviving. Factors used in these investigations were age, weight, tumor size, histology, tumor grade, nuclear grade, lymphovascular invasion, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), combined ER/PR receptor, overexpression of neu oncoprotein, DNA ploidy, S‐phase, and adjuvant therapy. In our study we found evidence against the Cox assumption of proportional hazards, which is not an assumption for the log‐normal approach. We identified patients with greater than 96% and others with less than 40% DSS at 10 years. The difference in prognosis determined by using the Cox versus the log‐normal model ranged for DFI from 1.2% to 8.1%, and for DSS from 0.4% to 6.2%; interestingly, the difference was more substantial for patients with a high risk of recurrence or death from breast cancer. Estimated prognoses may differ substantially by survival analysis model type, by amounts that might affect patient management, and we think that the log‐normal model has a major advantage over the Cox model for survival analysis.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prognostic factors affecting the natural history of node-negative breast cancerBreast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2005
- Bivariate Location–Scale Models for Regression Analysis, with Applications to Lifetime DataJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2004
- Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancerNature, 2002
- On functional misspecification of covariates in the Cox regression modelBiometrika, 2001
- New prognostic factors for breast cancer recurrenceSeminars in Oncology, 2001
- An improved statistical approach: Can it clarify the role of new prognostic factors for breast cancer?European Journal Of Cancer, 1996
- Model misspecification in proportional hazards regressionBiometrika, 1995
- Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic FactorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994
- A comparison of all-subset Cox and accelerated failure time models with Cox step-wise regression for node-positive breast cancerBreast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1992
- Long term prognosis of women with breast cancer in New Zealand: study of survival to 30 years.BMJ, 1983