Jenna Bhimani, Peng Wang, Grace B Gallagher, Kelli O'Connell, Sonia Persaud, Victoria S Blinder, Rachael Burganowski, Isaac J Ergas, Jennifer J Griggs, Narre Heon, Tatjana Kolevska, Yuriy Kotsurovskyy, Candyce H Kroenke, Cecile A Laurent, Raymond Liu, Kanichi G Nakata, Janise M Roh, Sara Tabatabai, Emily Valice, Elisa V Bandera, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Lawrence H Kushi, Elizabeth D Kantor
{"title":"I-IIIA期乳腺癌患者常规方案与剂量密集化疗相关的患者特征","authors":"Jenna Bhimani, Peng Wang, Grace B Gallagher, Kelli O'Connell, Sonia Persaud, Victoria S Blinder, Rachael Burganowski, Isaac J Ergas, Jennifer J Griggs, Narre Heon, Tatjana Kolevska, Yuriy Kotsurovskyy, Candyce H Kroenke, Cecile A Laurent, Raymond Liu, Kanichi G Nakata, Janise M Roh, Sara Tabatabai, Emily Valice, Elisa V Bandera, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Lawrence H Kushi, Elizabeth D Kantor","doi":"10.1007/s10549-025-07764-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compared to conventional chemotherapy schedules, use of dose-dense chemotherapy, which refers to administration of chemotherapy at standard doses with reduced cycle lengths, is known to improve survival, although may confer greater toxicity risk. We evaluated the patient factors associated with use of conventional vs. dose-dense chemotherapy administration schedules.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analyses include 4685 women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2019 for Stage I-IIIA breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington. Among women treated with drug combinations for which dose-dense administration schedules were observed, we used generalized linear models of the Poisson family with a log-link function to calculate prevalence ratios (PRatios) for the associations between patient factors and use of conventional vs. dose-dense administration schedules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Several factors were associated with receipt of conventional administration schedule, including older age (PRatio<sub>75+vs. 18-39</sub>: 2.97; 95% CI 2.35-3.75; p-trend < 0.001), renal impairment (PRatio: 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.17), and HER2+ status (PRatio: 1.50; 95% CI 1.38-1.62), among others. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of receipt of a conventional regimen schedule include: higher median household income (PRatio<sub>Q4 vs. Q1</sub> 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.80; p-trend < 0.001), diagnosis in later years (PRatio:<sub>2012-19 vs. 2005-11</sub> 0.44; 95% CI 0.41-0.48), and higher stage (PRatio<sub>stage IIIA vs. stage I</sub>: 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.58; p-trend < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients receiving conventional schedule vs. dose-dense chemotherapy represent those typically most vulnerable to toxicity or with lower risk disease, but may also represent groups vulnerable to disparities. Further research is needed to establish how to improve the uptake of dose-dense chemotherapy where appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":9133,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","volume":" ","pages":"115-126"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12289320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient characteristics associated with conventional schedule vs. dose dense chemotherapy in women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Jenna Bhimani, Peng Wang, Grace B Gallagher, Kelli O'Connell, Sonia Persaud, Victoria S Blinder, Rachael Burganowski, Isaac J Ergas, Jennifer J Griggs, Narre Heon, Tatjana Kolevska, Yuriy Kotsurovskyy, Candyce H Kroenke, Cecile A Laurent, Raymond Liu, Kanichi G Nakata, Janise M Roh, Sara Tabatabai, Emily Valice, Elisa V Bandera, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Lawrence H Kushi, Elizabeth D Kantor\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10549-025-07764-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compared to conventional chemotherapy schedules, use of dose-dense chemotherapy, which refers to administration of chemotherapy at standard doses with reduced cycle lengths, is known to improve survival, although may confer greater toxicity risk. We evaluated the patient factors associated with use of conventional vs. dose-dense chemotherapy administration schedules.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analyses include 4685 women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2019 for Stage I-IIIA breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington. Among women treated with drug combinations for which dose-dense administration schedules were observed, we used generalized linear models of the Poisson family with a log-link function to calculate prevalence ratios (PRatios) for the associations between patient factors and use of conventional vs. dose-dense administration schedules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Several factors were associated with receipt of conventional administration schedule, including older age (PRatio<sub>75+vs. 18-39</sub>: 2.97; 95% CI 2.35-3.75; p-trend < 0.001), renal impairment (PRatio: 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.17), and HER2+ status (PRatio: 1.50; 95% CI 1.38-1.62), among others. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of receipt of a conventional regimen schedule include: higher median household income (PRatio<sub>Q4 vs. Q1</sub> 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.80; p-trend < 0.001), diagnosis in later years (PRatio:<sub>2012-19 vs. 2005-11</sub> 0.44; 95% CI 0.41-0.48), and higher stage (PRatio<sub>stage IIIA vs. stage I</sub>: 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.58; p-trend < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients receiving conventional schedule vs. dose-dense chemotherapy represent those typically most vulnerable to toxicity or with lower risk disease, but may also represent groups vulnerable to disparities. Further research is needed to establish how to improve the uptake of dose-dense chemotherapy where appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"115-126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12289320/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-025-07764-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-025-07764-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:与传统化疗方案相比,使用剂量密集化疗,即以标准剂量减少周期长度的化疗,已知可提高生存率,尽管可能会带来更大的毒性风险。我们评估了与使用常规化疗方案和剂量密集化疗方案相关的患者因素。方法:分析了4685名2005年至2019年在北加州凯撒医疗机构和华盛顿凯撒医疗机构接受辅助化疗的I-IIIA期乳腺癌患者。在观察到剂量密集给药方案的联合用药妇女中,我们使用带对数链接函数的泊松家族广义线性模型来计算患者因素与使用常规给药方案和剂量密集给药方案之间的关联的患病率比(PRatios)。结果:几个因素与接受常规给药计划有关,包括年龄较大(PRatio75+vs。18-39: 2.97;95% ci 2.35-3.75;p趋势Q4 vs Q1 0.73;95% ci 0.67-0.80;p趋势2012-19 vs 2005-11 0.44;95% CI 0.41-0.48)和更高阶段(PRatiostage IIIA vs. stage I: 0.51;95% ci 0.46-0.58;p趋势结论:接受常规方案与剂量密集化疗的患者代表了那些典型的最易受毒性影响或疾病风险较低的患者,但也可能代表了易受差异影响的群体。需要进一步的研究来确定如何在适当的情况下提高剂量密集化疗的吸收。
Patient characteristics associated with conventional schedule vs. dose dense chemotherapy in women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer.
Introduction: Compared to conventional chemotherapy schedules, use of dose-dense chemotherapy, which refers to administration of chemotherapy at standard doses with reduced cycle lengths, is known to improve survival, although may confer greater toxicity risk. We evaluated the patient factors associated with use of conventional vs. dose-dense chemotherapy administration schedules.
Methods: Analyses include 4685 women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy between 2005 and 2019 for Stage I-IIIA breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington. Among women treated with drug combinations for which dose-dense administration schedules were observed, we used generalized linear models of the Poisson family with a log-link function to calculate prevalence ratios (PRatios) for the associations between patient factors and use of conventional vs. dose-dense administration schedules.
Results: Several factors were associated with receipt of conventional administration schedule, including older age (PRatio75+vs. 18-39: 2.97; 95% CI 2.35-3.75; p-trend < 0.001), renal impairment (PRatio: 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.17), and HER2+ status (PRatio: 1.50; 95% CI 1.38-1.62), among others. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of receipt of a conventional regimen schedule include: higher median household income (PRatioQ4 vs. Q1 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.80; p-trend < 0.001), diagnosis in later years (PRatio:2012-19 vs. 2005-11 0.44; 95% CI 0.41-0.48), and higher stage (PRatiostage IIIA vs. stage I: 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.58; p-trend < 0.001).
Conclusions: Patients receiving conventional schedule vs. dose-dense chemotherapy represent those typically most vulnerable to toxicity or with lower risk disease, but may also represent groups vulnerable to disparities. Further research is needed to establish how to improve the uptake of dose-dense chemotherapy where appropriate.
期刊介绍:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment provides the surgeon, radiotherapist, medical oncologist, endocrinologist, epidemiologist, immunologist or cell biologist investigating problems in breast cancer a single forum for communication. The journal creates a "market place" for breast cancer topics which cuts across all the usual lines of disciplines, providing a site for presenting pertinent investigations, and for discussing critical questions relevant to the entire field. It seeks to develop a new focus and new perspectives for all those concerned with breast cancer.