Abstract
Background
Among patients with osseous metastases, breast cancer (BC) patients typically have the best prognosis. In the palliative setting, BC is often considered a single disease, but based on receptor status there are four distinct subtypes: luminal A (LA), luminal B (LB), triple negative (TN), and HER2‐enriched (HER2). We hypothesize that survival and palliative outcomes following palliative RT for osseous metastases correlate with breast cancer subtype (BCS).
Methods
We identified 3,895 BC patients with known receptor status who received palliative RT for osseous metastases from 2004–2013 in the National Cancer Database. Kaplan–Meier method with log‐rank testing and univariate/multivariate Cox‐regression was used to identify survival factors. Incomplete radiation courses, 30‐day mortality rate, and percentage remaining life spent receiving RT (PRLSRT) were calculated.
Results
Subtypes were 54% LA, 33% LB, 8% TN, and 5% HER2 with median survival of 34.1, 28.2, 5.3, and 15.7 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall 82% of patients received ≥10 fractions. Although BCS had limited effect on radiation regimens, TN received nearly twice as many single or hypofractionated (≤5 fractions) treatments, but the overall rate of these fraction schemes was low at 3.7 and 13.7%, respectively. Compared to LA and LB, TN and HER2 patients had worse palliative outcomes; higher rates of incomplete courses at 18.8% and 18.3% versus 12.7%–14.4%; higher 30‐day mortality post‐radiotherapy at 21.5% and 16.0% versus 6.3%–7.9%, and higher median PRLSRT of 7.7% and 3.7% versus 2.2%–2.4% for LA and LB. On multivariate analysis, BCS was associated with overall survival with TN (HR 3.7), HER2 (HR 1.75), and LB (HR 1.28) fairing worse than LA (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
BCS correlated with survival and palliative outcome following radiation to osseous metastases. BCS should be considered by physicians when planning palliative RT to maximize quality‐of‐life, avoid unnecessary treatment, and ensure palliative benefits.
Keywords: breast cancer, osseous metastases, outcomes, palliative, radiation, subtype
This study demonstrates the impact of breast cancer subtype on survival and palliative outcomes after palliative radiation for osseous metastases. Patients with triple negative and HER2‐enriched subtypes had shorter survival, higher 30 and 90‐day mortality, had more incomplete treatments, spent more of their remaining lives receiving radiation treatments, but received similar radiation regimens compared to Luminal A and Luminal B patients. This correlation should be considered when selecting palliative radiotherapy regimens to avoid unnecessary treatment and improve palliative outcomes for poor‐prognosis patients.
1. INTRODUCTION
Patients with bone metastases from breast cancers typically have a better prognosis than those with bone metastasis originating from other primary sites, 1 , 2 and therefore are often treated with longer, more intense radiation courses. 3 However, breast cancer encompasses a spectrum of distinct subtypes with varying prognosis. 4 Traditionally, breast cancer has been classified into four distinct subtypes: luminal A (most common, best prognosis), luminal B, triple negative (worst prognosis), and Her2‐enriched. 5 , 6 Although breast cancer subtype (BCS) strongly determines primary treatment, there is little published on how BCS affects palliative radiotherapy regimens. Understanding these relationships is critical for determining the most appropriate dose fractionation scheme for each patient. We hypothesize that BCS predicts overall survival following palliative radiotherapy for osseous metastases and that the subtypes with poorer prognosis will also have inferior palliative outcomes as measured by 30‐day post‐RT mortality, number of incomplete radiation courses, and the percentage of remaining life spent receiving radiation therapy. To examine this hypothesis, we analyzed breast cancer patients receiving palliative radiation to osseous metastases from the National Cancer Database.
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
This Institutional Review Board approved‐study surveyed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from years 2004 to 2013 to identify patients with osseous metastases from breast cancer through the utilization of the International Classification of Diseases‐Third revision (ICD‐3) site‐specific code, C500‐509 (breast), and the radiation treatment volume for bone (24–28, 37, 38). Radiation dose and fractionation were evaluated, and doses not consistent with palliative bone radiation were excluded. Breast cancer subtype was determined using receptor status and tumor grade from the database to categorize patients as defined 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 :
Luminal A (LA): ER+and/or PR+, HER2‐
Luminal B (LB): ER+and/or PR+, HER2+; or ER+and/or PR+, HER2‐ with tumor grade 3
Triple negative (TN): ER‐, PR‐, HER2‐
HER2‐enriched (HER2): ER‐, PR‐, HER2+
The Kaplan–Meier method with log‐rank testing was used to evaluate survival outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with survival, with significant variables (p < 0.05) being included in a stepwise Cox‐regression model. Survival was calculated from the start of radiation therapy to the time of death or last follow‐up. Three metrics of palliative radiation quality were evaluated: the number of incomplete treatments, the 30‐day post RT mortality, and the percentage of remaining life patients spent receiving radiation therapy (PRLSRT). PRLSRT was calculated using the elapsed days of radiation (calendar days from start to completion) divided by the time from the start of radiation to death or last follow‐up. Treatment courses were considered to be incomplete if a standard palliative dose per fraction (8 Gy, 5 Gy, 4 Gy, 3 Gy, 2.5 Gy, and 2 Gy) were used, but the total dose was not equal to a common palliative regimen total for 40 Gy, 37.5 Gy, 35 Gy, 30 Gy, 25 Gy, 20 Gy, or 8 Gy. This method for determinizing incomplete treatment has been reported by others. 11
3. RESULTS
A total of 3895 breast cancer patients, who received palliative radiotherapy for osseous metastases from 2004–2013 were identified in the NCDB. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1. Mean patient age was 61 years with a range of 21–90 years. Median follow‐up was 20.4 months. LA was the most common subtype at 54.6% followed by LB at 33%, TN at 7.9%, and HER2 at 4.3%. Both HER2 and TN patients were more likely than either LA or LB patients to receive cytotoxic chemotherapy and to present with liver metastases or multisite visceral metastases. HER2 and TN patients had worse survival; the median overall survival from the start of radiotherapy was 5.3 months for TN and 15.7 months for HER2 compared to 34.1 and 28.2 months for LA and LB, respectively (p < 0.001) (Figure 1). Over half of all TN patients and 34% of HER2 patients were deceased by 6 months. (Figure 1). For patients with bone‐only metastases, breast cancer subtype remained predictive of survival with median overall survival for LA of 39.1 months, LB of 32.9 months, TN of 8.6 months, and HER2 of 30.9 months (overall p < 0.001, by pairwise comparison all relationships remained significant except LB and HER2 (p = 0.181) (Figure 1.).
TABLE 1.
Characteristics of breast cancer patients receiving palliative RT
| Variables (n) | Total cohort (n = 3922) | Subtype | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Luminal A (n = 2126, 54.2%) |
Luminal B (n = 1296, 33%) |
Triple Negative (n = 315, 8.3%) |
HER2 (n = 168, 4.5%) |
p‐value | ||
| Age (y), median (range) | 61 (21–90) | 63 (22–90) | 59 (21–90) | 61 (25–90) | 58 (27–90) | p < 0.001 |
| Race | ||||||
| Caucasian | 3192 (81.4%) | 1798 (84.6%) | 1007 (77.7%) | 246 (75.7%) | 141 (80.5%) | p < 0.001 |
| African American | 583 (14.9%) | 256 (12%) | 233 (18%) | 70 (21.6%) | 24 (13.7%) | |
| Others | 95(2.4%) | 48 (2.3%) | 38 (2.9%) | 4 (1.2%) | 5 (2.9%) | |
| Unknown | 52 (1.3%) | 24 (1.1%) | 18 (1.4%) | 5 (1.5%) | 5 (2.9%) | |
| Insurance | ||||||
| Not insured | 251 (6.4%) | 131 (6.2%) | 87 (6.7%) | 21 (6.7%) | 12 (7.1%) | p = 0.038 |
| Private | 1560 (40%) | 799 (37.6%) | 558 (43.1%) | 128 (40.6%) | 75 (45.2%) | |
| Government | 2034 (52.1%) | 1162 (54.6%) | 634 (48.9%) | 162 (51.4%) | 76 (44.6%) | |
| Unknown | 60 (1.6%) | 34 (1.6%) | 17 (1.3%) | 4 (1.3%) | 5 (3.0%) | |
| Median Income Quartile | ||||||
| 1st | 709 (18.2%) | 346 (16.3%) | 262 (20.2%) | 72 (23.2%) | 29 (17.4%) | p = 0.025 |
| 2nd | 851 (21.8%) | 466 (21.9%) | 277 (21.4%) | 75 (24.1%) | 33 (19.8%) | |
| 3rd | 1131 (28.9%) | 623 (29.3%) | 367 (28.3%) | 87 (28.0%) | 54 (32.3%) | |
| 4th | 1189 (30.4%) | 680 (32%) | 381 (29.4%) | 77 (24.8%) | 51 (30.5%) | |
| Charlson‐Deyo Score | ||||||
| 0 | 3159 (80.9%) | 1722 (81%) | 1048 (80.9%) | 250 (79.4%) | 139 (82.9%) | p = 0.536 |
| 1 | 553 (14.2%) | 309 (14.5%) | 181 (14%) | 45 (14.3%) | 18 (10.7%) | |
| ≥2 | 193 (4.9%) | 95 (4.5%) | 67 (5.1%) | 20 (6.3%) | 11 (8.3%) | |
| Metastases at diagnosis | ||||||
| None | 155 (4%) | 75 (3.5%) | 48 (3.7%) | 26 (8.3%) | 6 (3.6%) | p < 0.001 |
| Osseous only | 2375 (60.8%) | 1434 (67.5%) | 743 (57.3%) | 135 (42.9%) | 63 (37.5%) | |
| Brain any | 103 (2.6%) | 56 (2.6%) | 31 (2.4%) | 8 (2.5%) | 8 (4.4%) | |
| Liver any | 392 (10.0%) | 160 (7.5%) | 147 (11.4%) | 47 (14.9%) | 38 (16.9%) | |
| Lung any | 490 (12.5%) | 273 (12.9%) | 157 (12.1%) | 48 (15.2%) | 11 (6.5%) | |
| Multiple Visceral organs | 391 (10%) | 128 (6%) | 170 (13.1%) | 51 (16.2%) | 42 (25%) | |
| Osseous treatment sites | ||||||
| Axial | 2748 (70.4%) | 1480 (69.6%) | 918 (70.8%) | 222 (69.8%) | 128 (76.2%) |
p = 0.328 p < 0.001 |
| Appendicular | 1157 (29.6%) | 646 (30.4%) | 378 (29.2%) | 93 (30.2%) | 40 (23.8%) | |
| Spine | 2638 (67.2%) | 142 (66.8%) | 880 (67.9%) | 209 (64.3%) | 129 (73.7%) | |
| Skull | 55 (1.4%) | 26 (1.2%) | 20 (1.6%) | 7 (2.2%) | 2 (1.2%) | |
| Ribs | 65 (1.7%) | 34 (1.6%) | 18 (1.4%) | 11 (3.4%) | 2 (1.2%) | |
| Hip | 505 (12.9%) | 268 (12.6%) | 165 (12.7%) | 47 (14.4%) | 25 (14.2%) | |
| Pelvic | 251 (6.4%) | 143 (6.7%) | 83 (6.4%) | 18 (5.5%) | 7 (4%) | |
| Shoulder | 93 (2.4%) | 53 (2.5%) | 31 (2.4%) | 7 (2.2%) | 2 (1.2%) | |
| Extremities | 315 (8%) | 182 (8.6%) | 99 (7.6%) | 26 (8%) | 8 (4.5%) | |
| Chemotherapy | ||||||
| No | 2211 (56.6%) | 1534 (72.1%) | 560 (43.2%) | 90 (28.6%) | 27 (16.1%) | p < 0.001 |
| Yes | 1619 (41.5%) | 544 (25.6%) | 718 (55.4%) | 219 (69.5%) | 138 (82.1%) | |
| Unknown | 75 (1.9%) | 48 (2.3%) | 18 (1.4%) | 6 (1.9%) | 3 (1.8%) | |
| Hormone therapy | ||||||
| No | 1080 (27.7%) | 285 (13.4%) | 328 (25.3%) | 304 (99.0%) | 163 (98.2%) | p < 0.001 |
| Yes | 2758 (70.6%) | 1808 (85%) | 940 (72.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Unknown | 67 (1.7%) | 33 (1.6%) | 28 (2.2%) | 3 (1.0%) | 3 (1.8%) | |
| Median PRLSRT | 2.5% | 2.1% | 2.4% | 8.3% | 3.8% | |
FIGURE 1.
Mortality and survival. A, Mortality rate by breast cancer subtype. B–D, Overall survival by breast cancer subtype. B, Entire population. C, Patients with bone‐only disease. D, Patients with multiple visceral metastases. LA indicates luminal A; LB, luminal B; TN, triple negative
The most common radiotherapy regimen was 30 Gy in 10 fractions regardless of subtype. Advanced radiation techniques were used infrequently (3% Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, 1% receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy). The median duration of radiotherapy was 15 days. Insurance status correlates with receiving extended fractions (≥10): private 84.0%, government 81.2%, none 79.3%, and unknown 75.4% (p = 0.015). Table 2 shows the distributions of treatment regimens by breast cancer subtype. Overall, there was a preference for shorter courses for TN and HER2 subgroups with TN patients receiving nearly double the number of single fraction or hypofractionated (≤5 fractions) regimens. Despite the increased proportional use of fewer fractions for the TN and HER subtypes, overall single fraction treatments were used infrequently (3.7% of total). Overall 82% of all patients received ≥10 fractions (83.1% for LA, 81.9% for LB, 68.6% for TN, and 78.3% for HER2). About 14.0% of all patients stopped radiation early; the rate of incomplete treatments was significantly higher for TN (18.8%) and HER2 (18.3%) versus LA (12.7%) and LB (13.4%) (p < 0.001) (Table 3). Factors affecting the rate of incomplete radiation treatment include Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity index (13.6% for score 0, 12.6% for score 1, 23.8% for score 2, p < 0.001), osseous location (8.9% for appendicular vs. 16.1% for axial, p < 0.001), dose per fraction (0% for 8 Gy, 3.8% for 4 Gy, 24.6% for 3 Gy, 38.0% for 2.5 Gy and 12.5% for 2 Gy, p < 0.001), and breast cancer subtype (12.7% for LA, 14.4% for LB, 18.8% for TN, and 18.3% for HER2, p = 0.007). Overall the 30‐day and 90‐day post‐RT mortality was 8.5% and 16.2%, respectively. During these periods, the mortality rate for HER2 (16.0%; 24.6%) and TN (21.2%; 42.2%) was 2–3 times higher than LA and LB patients (6.3%–7.9%; 12.9%–14.0%) (p < 0.001).
TABLE 2.
Radiation treatment regimen distribution by subtype and fractionation median PRLSRT
| Radiation Regimen | Overall (% Patients) | Luminal A (% Patients) | Luminal B (% Patients) | Triple Negative (% Patients) | HER2‐enriched (% Patients) | Median PRLSRT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 × 20 | 1.6% | 1.8% | 1.2% | 1.8% | 1.7% | 3.8% |
| 37.5 × 15 | 9% | 9.1% | 10% | 6.2% | 5.1% | 2.9% |
| 35 × 14 | 11.3% | 12.4% | 10.3% | 7.7% | 12% | 3% |
| 30 × 10 | 49.3% | 49.6% | 50.2% | 43.1% | 50.9% | 2.4% |
| 25 × 5 | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0% | 1.6% |
| 20 × 5 | 5.1% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 9.2% | 4% | 1.4% |
| 8 × 1 | 2.4% | 2.4% | 1.8% | 4.6% | 2.9% | 0.2% |
| Other | 7.1% | 7.1% | 7% | 8.3% | 5.1% | 2.5% |
| Incomplete | 14% | 12.7% | 14.4% | 18.8% | 18.3% | 3.9% |
| Single fraction | 3.7% | 3.6% | 3% | 6.5% | 4.6% | 0.2% |
| 2–5 fractions | 10.0% | 9.4% | 9.2% | 17.8% | 9.1% | 1.5% |
| 6–10 fractions | 54.3% | 53.6% | 56.1% | 50.2% | 58.9% | 2.4% |
| >10 fractions | 32% | 33.5% | 31.7% | 25.5% | 27.4% | 3.1% |
| Hypofractionated | ||||||
| (1–5 fx) | 13.7% | 13.0% | 12.2% | 24.3% | 13.7% | 1.2% |
TABLE 3.
Number of complete versus incomplete palliative radiation therapy courses by subtype
| Subtype | Completed RT Course | Incomplete RT Course | % Incomplete RT Course | Median Overall Survival (months) | Complete Median Survival (months) | Incomplete Median Survival (months) | Complete Median PRLSRT | Incomplete Median PRLSRT | Overall Median PRLSRT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luminal A | 1857 | 269 | 12.7% | 34.1 | 36 | 18.9 | 2.2% | 3% | 2.2% |
| Luminal B | 1109 | 187 | 14.4% | 28.2 | 29 | 15.7 | 2.4% | 3.9% | 2.4% |
| Triple negative | 255 | 60 | 19.0% | 5.3 | 7.1 | 1.2 | 6.4% | 25.8% | 8.6% |
| HER2‐enriched | 136 | 32 | 19.0% | 15.7 | 19.9 | 8.1 | 3.4% | 7.0% | 3.7% |
| Overall | 3357 | 548 | 14% | 28.5 | 30.3 | 13.9 | 2.4% | 3.9% | 2.5% |
Overall 4.4% of patients had a PRLSRT of >50%, 10% had a PRSLRT of >25% and 19.4% had a PRLSRT of >10%. PRLSRT was impacted by multiple variables most notably the length of treatment, the completion of treatment, and the breast cancer subtype (Figure 2). Analysis of variables associated with 10%, 25%, and 50% PRLSRT identified multiple significant variables (Table 4). Of note, PRLSRT of ≥50% was observed in 13.2% of TN patients, 9.7% of HER2 patients, 14.6% of patients with incomplete RT courses, and 11.9% of those with Charlson‐Deyo score of 2.
FIGURE 2.
Percentage remaining life spent receiving treatment (PRLSRT) of alive and deceased patients by subtype. LA indicates luminal A subtype; LB, luminal B; TN, triple negative
TABLE 4.
Relationships of patient characteristics and PRLSRT (10%, 25%, and 50%)
| Category | 10% PRLSRT | 25% PRLSRT | 50% PRLSRT | p‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (all patients) | 19.4% | 10.0% | 4.4% | — |
| Age | p < 0.001 | |||
| ≤65 | 15.4% | 7.8% | 3.5% | |
| >65 | 26.5% | 13.8% | 6.1% | |
| Charlson‐Deyo score | p < 0.001 | |||
| 0 | 18.2% | 9.5% | 3.9% | |
| 1 | 22.5% | 10.6% | 5.0% | |
| 2 | 31.1% | 17.6% | 11.9% | |
| Incomplete RT | p < 0.001 | |||
| No | 16.8% | 7.5% | 2.8% | |
| Yes | 35.7% | 25.7% | 14.6% | |
| Metastases at diagnosis | p < 0.001 | |||
| Osseous only | 14.2% | 6.7% | 2.8% | |
| Lung | 24.4% | 15.3% | 6.3% | |
| Brain | 27.9% | 11.5% | 5.8% | |
| Liver | 26.0% | 14.6% | 7.3% | |
| None | 23.7% | 12.2% | 5.1% | |
| Multiple visceral sites | 34.1% | 17.6% | 8.7% | |
| Number of fractions | p < 0.001 | |||
| 1 fraction | 6.3% | 1.4% | 0.7% | |
| 2–5 fractions | 24.7% | 14.8% | 8.2% | |
| 6–10 fractions | 19.8% | 9.8% | 4.4% | |
| >10 fractions | 18.6% | 9.9% | 3.7% | |
| Osseous site of metastasis | p < 0.001 | |||
| Appendicular | 14.4% | 6.6% | 0.7% | |
| Axial | 21.5% | 11.5% | 3.7% | |
| BC subtype | p < 0.001 | |||
| LA | 15.8% | 7.8% | 2.8% | |
| LB | 17.5% | 8.8% | 4.2% | |
| TN | 45.8% | 25.5% | 13.2% | |
| HER2 | 29.1% | 17.7% | 9.7% |
Multivariate Cox‐regression analysis identified breast cancer subtype, age, private insurance status, metastatic site at diagnosis, treatment of axial skeletal metastases, Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity score, and the number of radiation treatments was significant predictors of overall survival (Table 5). As the aggressiveness of the breast cancer subtype increased so did the risk of death with all other subtypes being worse than LA, and TN patients having almost four times the risk of death compared to LA. Similar analysis limited to bone‐only disease confirmed the significance of BCS for survival (Hazard Ratio: LA (ref), LB 1.322 (1.165–1.504, p < 0.001), TN 4.092 (3.220–5.043, p < 0.001), HER2 1.589 (1.129–2.237, p = 0.008) (Figure 1).
TABLE 5.
Cox‐regression analysis of overall survival
| Category | Median Survival (months) | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio | 95% confidence interval | p‐value | Hazard Ratio | 95% confidence interval | p‐value | ||
| Age, continuous variable | — | 1.017 | 1.013–1.020 | 0.001 | 1.015 | 1.012–1.019 | <0.001 |
| Charlson‐Deyo score | |||||||
| 0 | 30.6 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| 1 | 21.1 | 1.350 | 1.204–1.514 | <0.001 | 1.230 | 1.095–1.382 | 0.001 |
| 2 | 11.6 | 1.902 | 1.596–2.267 | <0.001 | 1.621 | 1.356–1.936 | <0.001 |
| Race | |||||||
| White | 28.9 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| African American | 24.3 | 1.163 | 1.036–1.306 | 0.01 | 1.045 | 0.928–1.177 | 0.467 |
| Other | 38.1 | 0.766 | 0.568–1.033 | 0.081 | 0.654 | 0.483–0.886 | 0.006 |
| Unknown | 38.9 | 0.176 | 0.506–1.132 | 0.757 | 0.717 | 0.478–1.067 | 0.109 |
| Insurance status | |||||||
| Private | 34.9 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| Government | 23.3 | 1.473 | 1.348–1.611 | <0.001 | 1.267 | 1.144–1.402 | <0.001 |
| Uninsured | 24.5 | 1.366 | 1.142–1.636 | <0.001 | 1.274 | 1.062–1.529 | 0.009 |
| Unknown | 17.7 | 1.554 | 1.118–2.161 | <0.009 | 1.487 | 1.067–2.070 | 0.019 |
| Metastases at diagnosis | |||||||
| Osseous only | 35.0 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| Lung | 24.1 | 1.578 | 1.392–1.789 | <0.001 | 1.468 | 1.294–1.666 | <0.001 |
| Brain | 19.5 | 2.088 | 1.655–2.634 | <0.001 | 1.989 | 1.5673–2.515 | <0.001 |
| Liver | 18.3 | 1.807 | 1.581–2.064 | <0.001 | 1.788 | 1.560–2.049 | <0.001 |
| None | 24.1 | 1.324 | 1.324–1.069 | 0.010 | 1.185 | 0.952–1.476 | 0.128 |
| Multiple visceral sites | 12.4 | 2.445 | 2.163–2.786 | <0.001 | 2.344 | 2.055–2.673 | <0.001 |
| Number of fractions | |||||||
| 1 fraction | 24.4 | 1.435 | 1.149–1.792 | 0.001 | 1.349 | 1.075–1.693 | 0.010 |
| 2–5 fractions | 17.7 | 1.766 | 1.529–2.040 | <0.001 | 1.585 | 1.370–1.834 | <0.001 |
| 6–10 fractions | 27.7 | 1.178 | 1.072–1.294 | 0.001 | 1.134 | 1.031–1.247 | 0.010 |
| >10 fractions | 32.0 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| Osseous site of metastasis | |||||||
| Appendicular | 30.0 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| Axial | 27.6 | 1.121 | 1.022–1.230 | 0.015 | 1.165 | 1.060–1.280 | 0.001 |
| Breast cancer subtype | |||||||
| Luminal A | 34.1 | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) | (ref) |
| Luminal B | 28.2 | 1.267 | 1.154–1.391 | <0.001 | 1.282 | 1.165–1.411 | <0.001 |
| Triple Negative | 5.3 | 3.816 | 3.338–4.364 | <0.001 | 3.892 | 3.226–4.479 | <0.001 |
| HER2‐enriched | 15.7 | 1.931 | 1.603–2.326 | <0.001 | 1.747 | 1.437–2.124 | <0.001 |
4. DISCUSSION
Breast cancer patients who develop bone metastases are generally thought to have a favorable prognosis compared to those with bone metastases from other cancer types. 1 , 2 , 3 Breast cancer is a favorable prognostic factor for survival after palliative radiotherapy in two popular prognostic models. 1 , 12 In these models, the hazard ratio for overall survival was roughly 30–90% lower for breast cancer compared to prostate cancer, the second most favorable cancer, and significantly lower for other cancers. A recent Danish study showed the 3‐year overall survival after diagnosis of bone metastases to be significantly higher for breast at 25% compared to 12% for prostate, 10% for renal, 7% for colon, 3% for rectum, and 2% for lung. 3 While the current study reports a favorable survival outcome for the entire breast cancer cohort (3‐year overall survival of 41%), there are significant differences in survival outcomes based on receptor status (3‐year overall survival of 47% for LA, 39.2% for LB, 28.1% for HER2, and 8.3% for TN). A similar worse prognosis for TN was also observed in the cohort with bone‐only metastases. These disparate outcomes suggest that breast cancer subtypes should be considered separately when determining prognosis after palliative radiotherapy.
The differences in survival outcomes between breast cancer subtypes are likely multifactorial. 9 Despite limited data evaluating the impact of BCS on survival after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, worse survival rates for TN and HER2 cases have been observed in the localized and metastatic setting with these having a two to fourfold increased risk of death and a one‐half to one‐third shorter median survivals compared to LA. 10 , 13 Additionally each subtype tends to have a preference for the metastatic site. LA and LB subtypes have a predilection for bone‐only metastases, while TN and HER2 have higher incidence of brain, liver, and lung metastases. 14 , 15 The higher propensity for visceral metastases in TN and HER2 subtypes likely contribute to their worse prognosis as visceral metastases are known risk factors for death. 16 The effectiveness of systemic therapies for each subtype likewise contributes to the differences in outcome with ER/PR receptor positive subtypes being very responsive to antihormonal therapy and HER2 to targeted therapies.
The goals of palliative radiation to osseous metastases are symptom management, maintaining the quality of life, and preventing tumor progression, with pain control being the most common and often overarching goal. Roughly 25 randomized trials have shown that short courses of RT are equally effective at pain control compared to longer multifraction courses. The notion that breast cancer patients with bone metastases has better prognosis, often results in prolonged radiation treatments. This is borne out in the present study with more than 82% of patients prescribed ≥10 fractions. Although TN and HER2 patients received a slightly higher proportion of short treatment courses, the overall utilization of single and hypofractionated treatments was limited to 4% and 13%, respectively. Although the number of fractions for radiation treatments was correlated with survival on multivariate analysis in this study, this is likely a reflection of patient selection and patients with the worst prognosis not completing their treatments rather than an actual improved response with increasing dose, especially since the most common indication for radiation is pain control. For the most part, extended treatments are problematic for patients with poor prognosis, leading to a disproportionally larger portion of their remaining life spent receiving treatment and higher rates of incomplete courses. One metric to evaluate the appropriateness and length of the palliative radiation treatment is the post‐RT mortality at 30 and 90 days, which identifies those who die shortly after radiation delivery and subsequently may not have benefited from palliative RT, since the median time to pain response is 3 weeks. 17 The 30 and 90‐day mortality rate for HER2 and TN was 2–3 times higher than LA and LB patients, suggesting that many HER2 and TN patients may not have lived long enough to derive benefit from radiation. (Figure 1).
Although the choice of fractionation scheme may seem arbitrary, the length of treatment can significantly affect the palliative outcome. The PRLSRT reflects the burden of treatment. 18 Patients with a high PRLSRT had a high treatment burden, little time to derive the anticipated palliative benefits, and likely a net detriment to quality‐of‐life, well‐being, and resources. In this sense, PRLSRT forces physicians to consider how decisions regarding treatment length, the patient's estimated prognosis, and the time required to achieve the desired palliative goal impact how patients spend their remaining days—spending time with loved ones or commuting for treatment. In this study, higher PRSLRT was observed with longer RT courses, more aggressive breast cancer subtypes, visceral metastases, and incomplete treatment (Table 4). As a quality metric for palliative radiation, PRLSRT should be less than 10%; 19 meaning the duration of RT is less than 10% of the time from the start of radiotherapy to death. In the present study, about 20% of patients had a PRLSRT of at least 10%, but the rate was much higher in the TN and HER2 cohort at about 45% and 30%, respectively (Table 4). These groups also had a relatively high rate of PRLSRT ≥50% (13% and 9%, respectively), which again highlights the potential benefit of a shorter course of treatment in this subgroup, particularly given the equipoise in pain response and less cost for short courses. 12 , 20
Failure to complete a prescribed course of palliative radiotherapy can signify that the course was too long, the pretreatment prognosis was overly optimistic, or the anticipated benefits were not worth the expense of time and resources. 21 , 22 There is little data regarding the frequency of incomplete courses of palliative radiotherapy aside from the end‐of‐life setting, which shows high rates of incomplete radiation (42%–72%) with most patients stopping treatment secondary to death, hospice enrollment, or patient preference. 18 , 22 , 23 Limited data from retrospective and prospective studies report incompletion rates of 7%–10%. 21 , 24 In the current study, the rate of incomplete radiation was 14% with higher rates in patients with higher Charlson‐Deyo score, treatment of axial bone, longer treatment course, and TN and HER2 breast cancer subtype. The present study also confirms the findings of others that incomplete treatment was associated with poor survival outcomes and higher PRLSRT. 18 , 21 , 22 , 25 For these reasons, incomplete treatment is considered a quality metric for palliative radiotherapy. 19 Based on the available data consideration of patient morbidity, performance status, treatment site, and BCS can avoid incomplete treatment courses.
Quality‐of‐life and reduced suffering are two defining tenets of palliative radiotherapy. It is therefore essential to consider prognostic factors in order to personalize treatment courses and provide therapy that matches patient's goals and prognosis. Due to the significant impact breast cancer subtype has on survival and palliative outcomes, including it in prognostic calculations will likely improve treatment selection for all patients. As such poor‐prognosis patients could preferably benefit from short courses, which provide equal pain response as longer courses, but allow patients more time to spend as they wish. 12 , 20 Likewise, good prognosis patients may benefit from intense courses given some emerging benefits of more aggressive radiotherapy in good prognosis patients and are the main question in the ongoing NRG BR002 study. 17 , 26 Currently there is limited data of differing responsiveness of the various breast cancer subtypes to palliative radiation, but several studies have confirm the improved survival for luminal types after palliative RT. 27 , 28 Likewise, this study does identify additional factors that can impact survival after palliative RT and should also be considered when determining the duration and intensity of RT. These include advanced age, multi‐organ metastatic disease, Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity score, and the axial bone metastases.
Limitations of this study include its retrospective design and reliance on the NCDB. The database does not include pathological fracture, soft tissue component or pain level, which could influence dose selection. It also lacks the level of ER/PR expression or detailed genotyping which precludes a more accurately define subtype, but the surrogates used in this study are commonly used in the literature. 29 Careful efforts were taken to mitigate these limitations.
Each clinical subtype of breast cancer displays a unique behavior, metastatic tendency, and specific prognostic outcome. As such, receptor status is routinely used to tailor systemic therapy, but is infrequently applied to determining a palliative radiation prescription or prognosis after it. This reality is confirmed by the present study as the use of hormonal therapy and chemotherapies was strongly influenced by subtype, but there was a little difference in the radiation schemes, which led to worse palliative outcomes for TN and HER2 patients. It is unclear whether this disparity is related to the popularly applied prognostic models lumping all breast cancer patients together, the dearth of data relating survival after palliative radiotherapy based on receptor status, radiation oncologists being reluctant to use shorter course of treatment, or something else entirely. The present study may help rectify this situation by providing evidence for the inferior survival and palliative outcomes for TN and HER2 patients and helping physicians to better adapt radiation plans to the patient's actual prognosis, thereby providing better palliative outcomes and patients more time to spend as they wish. This study does not suggest that patients with TN or HER2 will not benefit from RT, but rather suggests we should be mindful when determining the duration and number of radiation treatments for these patients as to not erode the palliative benefit they will likely derive from them.
5. CONCLUSIONS
BCS is correlated with survival following palliative radiotherapy to osseous breast cancer metastases with strong correlation with three key metrics for evaluating palliative radiotherapy. Given the disparity in outcomes between subtypes, physicians should consider receptor status when choosing a palliative radiotherapy regimen to avoid excessive treatment and inconvenience, especially for poor‐prognosis patients. Weighing the benefits and risks of palliative radiotherapy based on receptor status is an important consideration for discussing treatment expectations, goals of care, and quality‐of‐life with these patients. Additional study is warranted to confirm and validate these findings.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Contributor Roles/Conceptualization (JRR, MKA, CJ, AC). Contributor Roles/Data curation (JRR, MKA). Contributor Roles/Formal analysis (JRR, MKA). Contributor Roles/Investigation (JRR, MKA). Contributor Roles/Methodology (All). Contributor Roles/Resources (All). Contributor Roles/Software (JRR, MKA). Contributor Roles/Supervision (JRR, CJ, CB, AC). Contributor Roles/Validation (All). Contributor Roles/Visualization (All). Contributor Roles/Writing – original draft (JRR, MKA). Contributor Roles/Writing – review & editing (All).
Funding informationThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.
REFERENCES
- 1. Krishnan MS, Epstein‐Peterson Z, Chen Y‐H, et al. Predicting life expectancy in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy: the TEACHH model: life expectancy in metastatic cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(1):134–141. 10.1002/cncr.28408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chow E, Abdolell M, Panzarella T, et al. Validation of a predictive model for survival in metastatic cancer patients attending an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2009;73(1):280–287. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.03.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Svensson E, Christiansen CF, Ulrichsen SP, Rørth MR, Sørensen HT. Survival after bone metastasis by primary cancer type: a Danish population‐based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016022 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, Levin W, Ullrich A, McGuire W. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER‐2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177–182. 10.1126/science.3798106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER‐2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast‐conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2373–2378. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4287 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Voduc KD, Cheang MCU, Tyldesley S, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Kennecke H. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(10):1684–1691. 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.9284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Brouckaert O, Schoneveld A, Truyers C, et al. Breast cancer phenotype, nodal status and palpability may be useful in the detection of overdiagnosed screening‐detected breast cancers. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(7):1847–1852. 10.1093/annonc/mdt179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Parise CA, Caggiano V. Breast cancer survival defined by the ER/PR/HER2 subtypes and a surrogate classification according to tumor grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2014;2014:1–11. 10.1155/2014/469251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J, et al. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67 10.1186/bcr2128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the carolina breast cancer study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ghiassi‐Nejad Z, Sindhu KK, Moshier E, et al. Factors associated with the receipt and completion of whole brain radiation therapy among older adults in the United States from 2010‐2013. J Geriatric Oncol. 2020;11(7):1096–1102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Chow R, Hoskin P, Schild SE, et al. Single vs multiple fraction palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: cumulative meta‐analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2019;141:56–61. 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Wang R, Zhu Y, Liu X, Liao X, He J, Niu L. The Clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of patients with different metastatic sites in stage IV breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1091 10.1186/s12885-019-6311-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Sihto H, Lundin J, Lundin M, et al. Breast cancer biological subtypes and protein expression predict for the preferential distant metastasis sites: a nationwide cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(5):R87 10.1186/bcr2944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, et al. Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):3271–3277. 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kast K, Link T, Friedrich K, et al. Impact of breast cancer subtypes and patterns of metastasis on outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150(3):621–629. 10.1007/s10549-015-3341-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Steenland E, Leer J, van Houwelingen H, et al. The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Radiother Oncol. 1999;52(2):101–109. 10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00110-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Gripp S, Mjartan S, Boelke E, Willers R. Palliative radiotherapy tailored to life expectancy in end‐stage cancer patients: Reality or myth? Cancer. 2010;116(13):3251–3256. 10.1002/cncr.25112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Jones JA, Lutz ST, Chow E, Johnstone PA. Palliative radiotherapy at the end of life: a critical review: palliative radiotherapy. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(5):295–310. 10.3322/caac.21242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Tong D, Gillick L, Hendrickson FR. The palliation of symptomatic osseous metastases: final results of the Study by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cancer. 1982;50(5):893–899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Puckett LL, Luitweiler E, Potters L, Teckie S. Preventing discontinuation of radiation therapy: predictive factors to improve patient selection for palliative treatment. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(9):e782–e791. 10.1200/JOP.2017.021220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kapadia NS, Mamet R, Zornosa C, Niland JC, D’Amico TA, Hayman JA. Radiation therapy at the end of life in patients with incurable nonsmall cell lung cancer: radiation therapy at the end of life. Cancer. 2012;118(17):4339–4345. 10.1002/cncr.27401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Berger B, Ankele H, Bamberg M, Zips D. Patients who die during palliative radiotherapy: status survey. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014;190(2):217–220. 10.1007/s00066-013-0471-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hartsell WF, Scott CB, Bruner DW, et al. Randomized trial of short‐ versus long‐course radiotherapy for palliation of painful bone metastases. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(11):798–804. 10.1093/jnci/dji139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Grabowski CM, Unger JA, Potish RA. Factors predictive of completion of treatment and survival after palliative radiation therapy. Radiology. 1992;184(2):329–332. 10.1148/radiology.184.2.1377829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Nguyen Q‐N, Chun SG, Chow E, et al. Single‐fraction stereotactic vs conventional multifraction radiotherapy for pain relief in patients with predominantly nonspine bone metastases: a randomized phase 2 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):872 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Lee SJ, Park S, Ahn HK, et al. Implications of bone‐only metastases in breast cancer: favorable preference with excellent outcomes of hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Cancer Res Treat Off J Korean Cancer Assoc. 2011;43(2):89–95. 10.4143/crt.2011.43.2.89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Nieder C, Dalhaug A, Pawinski A, Mannsåker B, Haukland E. Survival after palliative radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer and bone‐only metastases. Vivo Athens Greece. 2016;30(6):879–883. 10.21873/invivo.11008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, Suzanne Klimberg V, Brian Butler E, Teh BS. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(3):559–567. 10.1007/s10549-018-4801-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]