Next Article in Journal
Outcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients According to the Setting of Corticosteroid Initiation—A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Personalized Approaches for the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
U-Shaped Association between Waist-to-Hip Ratio and All-Cause Mortality in Stage 3–5 Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Body Mass Index Paradox
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Focus Group Study of Perceptions of Genetic Risk Disclosure in Members of the Public in Sweden: “I’ll Phone the Five Closest Ones, but What Happens to the Other Ten?”
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/jpm11121358
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy Improve Survival in Women with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery

by
Jiaqiang Zhang
1,†,
Shao-Yin Sum
2,†,
Jeng-Guan Hsu
3,
Ming-Feng Chiang
4,
Tian-Shyug Lee
3 and
Szu-Yuan Wu
3,5,6,7,8,9,*
1
Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Henan Provincial People’s Hospital, People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China
2
Department of General Surgery, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 265, Taiwan
3
Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City 242062, Taiwan
4
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 265, Taiwan
5
Department of Food Nutrition and Health Biotechnology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 413, Taiwan
6
Big Data, Cancer Center, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 265, Taiwan
7
Division of Radiation Oncology, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 265, Taiwan
8
Department of Healthcare Administration, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 413, Taiwan
9
Centers for Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Taipei Municipal Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors have contributed equally to this study (coauthors).
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(12), 1358; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11121358
Submission received: 17 October 2021 / Revised: 5 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 December 2021 / Published: 13 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personalized Approaches for the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: to date, no data on the effect of adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) on oncologic outcomes, such as all-cause death, locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM), are available in women with left-side breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients and Methods: we included 294 women with left-breast IDC at clinical stages IA–IIIC and HFrEF receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT. We categorized them into two groups based on their adjuvant WBRT status and compared their overall survival (OS), LRR, and DM outcomes. We calculated the propensity score and applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to create a pseudo-study cohort. Furthermore, we performed a multivariate analysis of the propensity score–weighted population to obtain hazard ratios (HRs). Results: in the IPTW-adjusted model, adjuvant WBRT (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–0.94) was a significant independent prognostic factor for all-cause death (p = 0.0424), and the aHR (95% CI) of LRR and DM for adjuvant WBRT was 0.33 (0.24–0.71; p = 0.0017) and 0.37 (0.22–0.63; p = 0.0004), respectively, compared with the non-adjuvant WBRT group. Conclusion: Adjuvant WBRT was associated with a decrease in all-cause death, LRR, and DM in women with left IDC and HFrEF compared with non-adjuvant WBRT.

1. Introduction

Cardiovascular disease may be a complication of breast radiotherapy (RT) and the use of specific systemic agents in the treatment of breast cancer [1]. Incidental radiation to the heart as part of the initial treatment for breast cancer can result in a range of cardiotoxic effects, including coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, valvular dysfunction, and conduction abnormalities [2,3,4]. At present, no recommended minimum radiation dose that is completely safe exists [3]. RT-related cardiotoxicity (RICT) is associated with a portion of the heart being placed in a radiation field [1]. For all patients with left-sided breast cancers, careful treatment planning is critical to minimize cardiac exposure to radiation [1].
The association of RT with cardiotoxicity is not dependent on the presence or absence of a breast but on the volume of radiation to the heart [3,4]. Thus, cardiotoxicities associated with RT differ between the postlumpectomy and postmastectomy settings; this is because in the postmastectomy setting, the RT field often includes the nodal tissues, and these nodes are not always targeted in the postlumpectomy setting [5,6]. Thus, postmastectomy RT is more often associated with cardiac disease relative to postlumpectomy RT, but this is likely a result of the usually larger irradiated volumes of the heart in postmastectomy RT [5,6]. Therefore, RICT in patients with breast cancer should be minimized by using different surgical techniques of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and total mastectomy (TM).
Another crucial issue is whether adjuvant whole breast RT (WBRT) can be safely given to women with heart failure (HF) and left-side breast cancer who receive BCS. No data are available to address the value of adjuvant WBRT in women with breast cancer and HF receiving BCS. HF due to left ventricle (LV) dysfunction is categorized according to LV ejection fraction (LVEF) as HF with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤40%, known as HFrEF) [7,8,9]. Until now, no study has estimated the oncologic outcomes of adjuvant WBRT in women with breast-invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and HFrEF receiving BCS.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Study Population

In this cohort study, data were retrieved from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database (TCRD). Our study is the retrospective cohort study with propensity scores matching design. We included women with HF with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%; HFrEF) [7,8,9] who had received a diagnosis of left-side breast IDC between 1 January 2008, and 31 December 2018. The index date was the date of BCS, and the follow-up duration was from the index date to 31 December 2019. The TCRD of the Collaboration Center of Health Information Application contains detailed cancer-related information of patients, including their clinical stage, pathologic stages, chemotherapy regimens, dose of chemotherapy, molecular status, drug use, hormone receptor status, radiation modalities and doses, and surgical procedures [10,11,12,13]. The study protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tzu-Chi Medical Foundation (IRB109-015-B).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The diagnoses of the included patients with HFrEF were confirmed after their pathological data were reviewed, and the women with newly diagnosed left-side IDC were confirmed to have no other cancers or distant metastases. The women with HFrEF were included if they had received a left-side IDC diagnosis, were 20 years old or older, and had clinical stage IA–IIIC (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], 8th edition) without metastasis. Patients with HFrEF were excluded if they had a history of cancer before the IDC diagnosis date, unknown pathologic types, missing sex data, unclear staging, or non-IDC histology. In addition, patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy or with unclear differentiation of tumor grade, missing HR status, missing data on trastuzumab or anthracycline use, or unclear staging were excluded. Other adjuvant treatments such as adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitors did not constitute exclusion criteria based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines [14]. We also excluded patients with HFrEF with unclear data on surgical procedures such as BCS or TM, ill-defined nodal surgery, unclear Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), or unclear differentiation from our cohort. Hormone receptor positivity was defined as ≥1% of tumor cells demonstrating positive nuclear staining through immunohistochemistry [15]. All included women with breast cancer had no cardiac surgery. Therefore, we made sure that patients with severe valvular heart disease, severe three vessel disease, or left main coronary artery disease requiring cardiac intervention like percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve replacement, or percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty were not included in the analysis.
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 294 women with HFrEF and AJCC clinical stage IA–IIIC and left-side IDC who had received a BCS followed by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and divided them into two groups based on their adjuvant WBRT status to compare all-cause mortality: Group 1 (women with left-side IDC and HFrEF who received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT) and Group 2 (women with left-side IDC and HFrEF who received BCS and non-adjuvant WBRT). We also excluded women in Group 1 receiving non-standard adjuvant WBRT (contrast with standard adjuvant radiotherapy consisting of irradiation to the whole breast with a minimum of 50 Gy). Contemporary RT techniques were included in our study and the conventional two-dimensional RT technique was excluded. The contemporary RT techniques included were three-dimensional RT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The incidence of comorbidities was scored using the CCI [16,17]. Coronary arterial diseases (one vessels stenosis or two vessels stenosis), valvular disease (aortic stenosis/regurgitation or mitral stenosis/regurgitation), hypertension, atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmias, and diabetes were excluded from the CCI scores to avoid repetitive adjustment in multivariate analysis. The definition of cardiomyopathy in our study was idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Only comorbidities observed within 6 months before the index date were included; they were coded and classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes at the first admission or based on more than two repetitions of a code issued at outpatient department visits.

2.3. Study Covariates and Statistical Analysis

Significant independent predictors, namely age, diagnosis year, CCI score, differentiation, pT, pN, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, CKD, coronary arterial diseases (one-vessels stenosis or two-vessel stenosis), valvular disease (aortic stenosis/regurgitation or mitral stenosis/regurgitation), atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmias, diabetes, statins, antithrombotic therapy, diuretic, beta blockers, and renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, chemotherapy with anthracycline-based regimen, hormone receptor status, trastuzumab use, nodal surgery, hospital level (academic or nonacademic), and income (Table 1), were analyzed using a multivariate analysis of the propensity score–weighted population to determine hazard ratios (HRs). We calculated the propensity score and applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to create a pseudo-study cohort; the weighted cohort avoids covariate bias and mimics randomized adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT assignment: IPTW for patients with WBRT = 1/p(WBRT); IPTW for patients without WBRT = 1/(1 − p[WBRT]) [18,19]. The independent predictors were examined in multivariable analyses after IPTW adjustment. Moreover, they were controlled for and were stratified in the analysis. The endpoint was all-cause death in the women with left-side IDC and HFrEF who received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT (Group 1, case group) and in the women with left IDC and HFrEF who received BCS and had non-adjuvant WBRT (Group 2, control group).
The cumulative incidence of death was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in the overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR)-free survival, and distant metastasis (DM)-free survival between women with left IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT versus non-adjuvant WBRT were determined using a log-rank test. After confounders were adjusted for, IPTW-adjusted models were used to determine the time from the index date to all-cause mortality in the women with left IDC and HFrEF who received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT. Subsequently, in a multivariate analysis, HRs were adjusted for covariates mentioned in Table 2. All analyses were conducted using SAS (Version 9.4; SAS, Cary, NC, USA), and a two-tailed p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Study Cohort

We included 294 women with left-breast IDC at clinical stages IA–IIIC and HFrEF who received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT (Table 1). Among these women, 223 with left IDC and HFrEF received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT (Group 1) and 71 with left IDC and HFrEF received BCS with non-adjuvant WBRT (Group 2). After IPTW was executed using the propensity score, the covariates between Groups 1 and 2 were found to be homogenous. The median follow-up durations after the index date were 6.96 and 5.09 years for women with left IDC and HFrEF who received BCS followed by adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT, respectively. All standardized differences in covariates were smaller than 0.1 (Table 1) and were homogenous between the two groups. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia were 43.9% and 47.9% for adjuvant WBRT and no-adjuvant WBRT groups, respectively.

3.2. Effects of Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy (WBRT) on Oncologic Outcomes in Women with Left-Side Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery (BCS)

IPTW-adjusted models indicated that adjuvant WBRT was a significantly better independent prognostic factor for OS, LRR, and DM in the women with left IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS (Table 2). Adjuvant WBRT (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–0.94) was a significant independent prognostic factor for all-cause death (p = 0.0424; Table 2). In the IPTW-adjusted model, the aHR (95% CI) for LRR in the adjuvant WBRT group was 0.33 (0.24–0.71; p = 0.0017; Table 2) compared with the non-adjuvant WBRT group. Moreover, the aHR (95% CIs) for DM in the adjuvant WBRT group was 0.37 (0.22–0.63; p = 0.0004) compared with the non-adjuvant WBRT group (Table 2).

3.3. Other Independent Predictors of All-Cause Death, Locoregional Recurrence (LRR), and Distant Metastasis (DM) in the Women with Left IDC and HFrEF Receiving BCS

Old age (>65 years), CCI ≥ 1, advanced pT stages (pT2–4), advanced pN stages (pN1–3), hormone receptor negative status, and differentiation Grade II and III were identified as crucial independent poor prognostic factors for OS (Table 2). IPTW-adjusted models were adjusted for age, diagnosis year, CCI score, differentiation, pT, pN, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart valvular disease, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias and conduction disorders, diabetes, adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracycline-based regimen, hormone receptor status, trastuzumab use, nodal surgery, hospital level, and income; the aHRs (95% CIs) of all-cause death for age > 65 years, CCI ≥ 1, pT2–4, pN1–3, differentiation Grades II and III, and hormone receptor positive status were 1.31 (1.12–3.01), 1.15 (1.09–1.66), 1.28 (1.05–2.28), 2.31 (1.30–4.24), 1.44 (1.10–2.00), 1.71 (1.24–2.13), and 0.70 (0.50–0.89) compared with age 20–65 years, CCI = 0, pT1, pN0, differentiation grade I, and hormone receptor negative status, respectively (Table 2). IPTW-adjusted models also revealed the aHRs (95% CIs) of LRR for pT2–4, pN1–3, differentiation grade II, differentiation grade III, and hormone receptor positive status to be 1.69 (1.03–2.73), 1.72 (1.35–4.30), 1.86 (1.43–2.18), 1.91 (1.44–2.56), and 0.68 (0.51–0.88) compared with pT1, pN0, differentiation grade I, and hormone receptor negative status, respectively. Moreover, the aHRs (95% CIs) of DM for pT2–4, pN1-3, differentiation grade II, differentiation grade III, and hormone receptor positive status were 1.41 (1.18–3.17), 1.66 (1.24–2.69), 1.82 (1.39–2.79), 1.96(1.51–2.67), and 0.61 (0.38–0.74) compared with pT1, pN0, differentiation grade I, and hormone receptor negative status, respectively.

3.4. Survival Curves of Adjuvant WBRT or Non-Adjuvant WBRT in Women with Left IDC and HFrEF Receiving BCS

Figure 1 presents Kaplan–Meier curves that illustrate the OS of the women with left IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS with adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT. The 5-year overall survival rates were 86.47% and 75.92% in the adjuvant WBRT and non-adjuvant WBRT groups, respectively (Figure 1); the OS rate was associated with an increasing trend in the adjuvant WBRT group (log-rank test, p = 0.0618) compared with the non-WBRT group. Additionally, the 5-year LRR-free survival in women with left IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS was 95.78% and 86.11% in the adjuvant WBRT group and non-adjuvant WBRT group, respectively (Figure 2; log-rank test, p = 0.0083). The 5-year DM-free survival in women with left IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS was 96.23% and 78.33% in the adjuvant WBRT group and non-adjuvant WBRT group, respectively (Figure 3; log-rank test, p = 0.0027).

4. Discussion

The use of RT has contributed to significant improvements in disease-specific survival among patients with early stage breast cancer [20]. The success of RT, used either alone or in combination with other modalities, has resulted in large cohorts of breast cancer survivors who are vulnerable to late complications such as RICT from RT [5,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Numerous treatment-related factors are responsible for cardiotoxicity in women with breast cancer [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Thus, we conducted the study to determine the survival benefits offered by adjuvant WBRT in women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS.
Patients with breast cancer might experience adverse effects from many cardiotoxic treatments such as adjuvant RT, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, or trastuzumab [5,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Although cardiovascular diseases such as HF, heart attacks, and stroke remain the leading causes of death in women, many believe breast cancer to be more deadly [39]. In fact, the risk of RICT should be weighed against the potential benefits of adjuvant WBRT with respect to the patients’ prognosis and likely clinical benefit [5,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Until now, no data have been available for the evaluation of oncologic outcomes (OS, LRR, and DM) of adjuvant WBRT in women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. This is the first study to explore the value of adjuvant WBRT for women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. As shown in Table 2, adjuvant WBRT resulted in better OS, LRR-free status, and DM-free status compared with non-adjuvant WBRT in women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. The potential reasons might be the recent decline in mortality in women with HF [40,41] and the advances in contemporary RT techniques with reduced irradiation volumes to the heart [2,23,24].
According to our literature review, this is the first study to estimate the oncologic outcomes of adjuvant WBRT among women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. There is no consensus or evidence for the use of adjuvant WBRT in women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. In the IPTW-adjusted models, adjuvant WBRT was associated with a decrease in the risk of all-cause death, LRR, and DM among women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS (Table 2). We have no ethical conflicts in the study. We only presented the real world data compatible with our daily practice experience in Taiwan. In fact, some physicians choose BCS only and non-adjuvant left-side breast RT for women with breast cancer having HFrEF in the real world. The potential reasons might be the concerns that left-side breast radiotherapy might aggravate heart failure contributing to cardiac death before breast cancer death. Our study is the first to demonstrate that the potential benefits of adjuvant WBRT with contemporary RT techniques outweighs the risk of RICT given the patients’ prognosis and likely long-term OS, LRR, and DM benefits (Table 2). According to our findings, we strongly suggest that women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS should also receive adjuvant WBRT to decrease the risk of all-cause death, LRR, and DM.
A strength of our study was that it was the first cohort study to estimate the survival outcomes of adjuvant WBRT or non-adjuvant WBRT among women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. The covariates between the adjuvant WBRT and non-adjuvant WBRT groups were homogenous for women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS, with no selection bias (Table 1). No study has estimated the effect of adjuvant WBRT on women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. In our study, the poor prognostic factors for OS in women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS were old age, CCI ≥1, advanced pT stages (pT2–4), advanced pN stages (pN1–3), hormone receptor negative status, and differentiation Grades II–III of (Table 2), which are consistent with factors in women with breast cancer without HFrEF reported in previous studies [42,43,44,45,46]. Furthermore, our study is the first to demonstrate the benefits of adjuvant WBRT with contemporary RT techniques for OS, LRR, and DM in women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. Our findings should be considered in future clinical practice and prospective clinical trials. We suggest that adjuvant WBRT is valuable to achieving better outcomes of OS, LRR, and DM in women with left-side IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS.
This study has some limitations. First, because all women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF were included from an Asian population, the corresponding ethnic susceptibility compared with the non-Asian population remains unclear; hence, our results should be cautiously extrapolated to non-Asian populations. However, no evidence exists as to the differences in oncologic outcomes in Asian versus non-Asian patients with breast IDC and HFrEF receiving BCS. Second, the factors of New York Heart Association functional class [47], magnitude of left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial dilatation, brain natriuretic peptide levels cannot be available in the TCRD. However, all coding of HFrEF was determined by professional cardiologists in Taiwan and the coding was all by craniological specialists. The cardiovascular diseases were verified as accurate by the previous cardiovascular studies. Therefore, we believe the definition of HFrEF will be specific and accurate. Third, the diagnoses of all comorbid conditions were based on ICD-10-CM codes. However, the combination of Taiwanese TCRD and National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) data appears to be a valid resource for population research on cardiovascular diseases, stroke, or chronic comorbidities [48,49,50]. Moreover, the Taiwan Cancer Registry Administration randomly reviews charts and interviews patients to verify the accuracy of the diagnoses, and hospitals with outlier chargers or practices may be audited and subsequently be heavily penalized if any malpractice or discrepancy is detected. Accordingly, to obtain crucial information on population specificity and disease occurrence, a large-scale randomized trial comparing carefully selected patients undergoing suitable treatments is essential. Finally, the TCRD does not contain information regarding dietary habits or body mass index, which may be risk factors for mortality. Nevertheless, considering the magnitude and statistical significance of the observed effects in this study, these limitations are unlikely to affect the conclusions.

5. Conclusions

Adjuvant WBRT was associated with a decrease in all-cause death, LRR, and DM among women with left-side breast IDC and HFrEF compared with non-adjuvant WBRT. We suggest adjuvant WBRT for women with left-side IDC receiving BCS, even if they have HFrEF.

Author Contributions

Conception and Design: J.Z. and S.-Y.W., Collection and Assembly of Data: J.Z., S.-Y.S. and S.-Y.W. Data Analysis and Interpretation: J.Z., J.-G.H., M.-F.C. and T.-S.L. Administrative Support: S.-Y.W. Manuscript Writing: J.Z., S.-Y.S., M.-F.C. and S.-Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, LotungPoh-Ai Hospital, supports Szu-Yuan Wu’s work (Funding Number: 10908, 10909, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11006, and 11013).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tzu-Chi Medical Foundation (IRB109-015-B). We used data from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) and Taiwan Cancer Registry database (TCRD). The authors confirm that, for approved reasons, some access restrictions apply to the data underlying the findings. The data utilized in this study cannot be made available in the manuscript, the supplemental files, or in a public repository due to the “Personal Information Protection Act” executed by Taiwan’s government, starting from 2012. Requests for data can be sent as a formal proposal to obtain approval from the ethics review committee of the appropriate governmental department in Taiwan.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from the Health and Welfare Data Science Center and are available with the permission of the Health and Welfare Data Science Center, Taiwan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflict of interest to declare. The data sets supporting the study conclusions are included in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

WBRTwhole breast radiotherapy
LRRlocoregional recurrence
DMdistant metastasis
IDCinvasive ductal carcinoma
HFrEFheart failure with reduced ejection fraction
BCSbreast-conserving surgery
OSoverall survival
aHRadjusted hazard ratio
HRhazard ratio
IPTWinverse probability of treatment weighting
CIconfidence interval
AJCCAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer
TCRDTaiwan Cancer Registry Database
SDstandard deviation
Her-2human epidermal growth factor receptor-2
SLNBsentinel lymph node biopsy
ALNDaxillary lymph node dissection
CKDchronic kidney disease
CCICharlson comorbidity index
ICD-10-CMInternational Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification
NCCNNational Comprehensive Cancer Network
RTradiotherapy
RICTradiotherapy-related cardiotoxicity
TMtotal mastectomy
HFheart failure
LVleft ventricular
LVEFleft ventricular ejection fraction
Ttumor
Nnodal
pTpathologic tumor stage
pNpathologic nodal stage
NHIRDNational Health Insurance Research Database

References

  1. Hooning, M.J.; Botma, A.; Aleman, B.M.; Baaijens, M.H.; Bartelink, H.; Klijn, J.G.; Taylor, C.W.; van Leeuwen, F.E. Long-term risk of cardiovascular disease in 10-year survivors of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Travis, L.B.; Ng, A.K.; Allan, J.M.; Pui, C.H.; Kennedy, A.R.; Xu, X.G.; Purdy, J.A.; Applegate, K.; Yahalom, J.; Constine, L.S.; et al. Second malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease following radiotherapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2012, 104, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moslehi, J. The cardiovascular perils of cancer survivorship. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 1055–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Darby, S.C.; Ewertz, M.; McGale, P.; Bennet, A.M.; Blom-Goldman, U.; Bronnum, D.; Correa, C.; Cutter, D.; Gagliardi, G.; Gigante, B.; et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 987–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Paszat, L.F.; Mackillop, W.J.; Groome, P.A.; Schulze, K.; Holowaty, E. Mortality from myocardial infarction following postlumpectomy radiotherapy for breast cancer: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1999, 43, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hojris, I.; Overgaard, M.; Christensen, J.J.; Overgaard, J. Morbidity and mortality of ischaemic heart disease in high-risk breast-cancer patients after adjuvant postmastectomy systemic treatment with or without radiotherapy: Analysis of DBCG 82b and 82c randomised trials. Radiotherapy Committee of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Lancet 1999, 354, 1425–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Yancy, C.W.; Jessup, M.; Bozkurt, B.; Butler, J.; Casey, D.E., Jr.; Drazner, M.H.; Fonarow, G.C.; Geraci, S.A.; Horwich, T.; Januzzi, J.L.; et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013, 128, 1810–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ponikowski, P.; Voors, A.A.; Anker, S.D.; Bueno, H.; Cleland, J.G.F.; Coats, A.J.S.; Falk, V.; Gonzalez-Juanatey, J.R.; Harjola, V.P.; Jankowska, E.A.; et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2129–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yancy, C.W.; Jessup, M.; Bozkurt, B.; Butler, J.; Casey, D.E., Jr.; Colvin, M.M.; Drazner, M.H.; Filippatos, G.S.; Fonarow, G.C.; Givertz, M.M.; et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation 2017, 136, e137–e161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zhang, J.; Lu, C.Y.; Chen, C.H.; Chen, H.M.; Wu, S.Y. Effect of pathologic stages on postmastectomy radiation therapy in breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and total mastectomy: A Cancer Database Analysis. Breast 2020, 54, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, J.; Lu, C.Y.; Qin, L.; Chen, H.M.; Wu, S.Y. Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast receiving preoperative systemic therapy: A cohort study. Breast 2020, 54, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, J.; Lu, C.Y.; Chen, H.M.; Wu, S.Y. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Endocrine Therapy for Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast With High Hormone Receptor Positivity and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Negativity. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e211785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, W.C.; Liu, H.E.; Kao, Y.W.; Qin, L.; Lin, K.C.; Fang, C.Y.; Tsai, L.L.; Shia, B.C.; Wu, S.Y. Definitive radiotherapy or surgery for early oral squamous cell carcinoma in old and very old patients: A propensity-score-matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 151, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Available online: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp (accessed on 15 January 2021).
  15. Hammond, M.E.; Hayes, D.F.; Dowsett, M.; Allred, D.C.; Hagerty, K.L.; Badve, S.; Fitzgibbons, P.L.; Francis, G.; Goldstein, N.S.; Hayes, M.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 2784–2795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Charlson, M.; Szatrowski, T.P.; Peterson, J.; Gold, J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1994, 47, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, J.H.; Yen, Y.C.; Yang, H.C.; Liu, S.H.; Yuan, S.P.; Wu, L.L.; Lee, F.P.; Lin, K.C.; Lai, M.T.; Wu, C.C.; et al. Curative-Intent Aggressive Treatment Improves Survival in Elderly Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma and High Comorbidity Index. Medicine 2016, 95, e3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, S.H.; Wang, L.; Myles, B.; Thall, P.F.; Hofstetter, W.L.; Swisher, S.G.; Ajani, J.A.; Cox, J.D.; Komaki, R.; Liao, Z. Propensity score-based comparison of long-term outcomes with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Austin, P.C.; Stuart, E.A. 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, 3661–3679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group; Darby, S.; McGale, P.; Correa, C.; Taylor, C.; Arriagada, R.; Clarke, M.; Cutter, D.; Davies, C.; Ewertz, M.; et al. 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, 1707–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Yu, J.M.; Hsieh, M.C.; Qin, L.; Zhang, J.; Wu, S.Y. Metformin reduces radiation-induced cardiac toxicity risk in patients having breast cancer. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2019, 9, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, C.H.; Zhang, J.F.; Yuan, K.S.; Wu, A.T.H.; Wu, S.Y. Risk of cardiotoxicity induced by adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy in young and old Asian women with breast cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2019, 195, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Giordano, S.H.; Kuo, Y.F.; Freeman, J.L.; Buchholz, T.A.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Goodwin, J.S. Risk of cardiac death after adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2005, 97, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Darby, S.C.; McGale, P.; Taylor, C.W.; Peto, R. Long-term mortality from heart disease and lung cancer after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: Prospective cohort study of about 300,000 women in US SEER cancer registries. Lancet Oncol. 2005, 6, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Patt, D.A.; Goodwin, J.S.; Kuo, Y.F.; Freeman, J.L.; Zhang, D.D.; Buchholz, T.A.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Giordano, S.H. Cardiac morbidity of adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 7475–7482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Taylor, C.W.; Bronnum, D.; Darby, S.C.; Gagliardi, G.; Hall, P.; Jensen, M.B.; McGale, P.; Nisbet, A.; Ewertz, M. Cardiac dose estimates from Danish and Swedish breast cancer radiotherapy during 1977–2001. Radiother. Oncol. 2011, 100, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. McGale, P.; Darby, S.C.; Hall, P.; Adolfsson, J.; Bengtsson, N.O.; Bennet, A.M.; Fornander, T.; Gigante, B.; Jensen, M.B.; Peto, R.; et al. Incidence of heart disease in 35,000 women treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer in Denmark and Sweden. Radiother. Oncol. 2011, 100, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Boekel, N.B.; Jacobse, J.N.; Schaapveld, M.; Hooning, M.J.; Gietema, J.A.; Duane, F.K.; Taylor, C.W.; Darby, S.C.; Hauptmann, M.; Seynaeve, C.M.; et al. Cardiovascular disease incidence after internal mammary chain irradiation and anthracycline-based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 119, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group; Peto, R.; Davies, C.; Godwin, J.; Gray, R.; Pan, H.C.; Clarke, M.; Cutter, D.; Darby, S.; McGale, P.; et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: Meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012, 379, 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Blum, J.L.; Flynn, P.J.; Yothers, G.; Asmar, L.; Geyer, C.E., Jr.; Jacobs, S.A.; Robert, N.J.; Hopkins, J.O.; O’Shaughnessy, J.A.; Dang, C.T.; et al. Anthracyclines in Early Breast Cancer: The ABC Trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology). J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2647–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zamorano, J.L.; Lancellotti, P.; Rodriguez Munoz, D.; Aboyans, V.; Asteggiano, R.; Galderisi, M.; Habib, G.; Lenihan, D.J.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Lyon, A.R.; et al. 2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2768–2801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cardinale, D.; Colombo, A.; Bacchiani, G.; Tedeschi, I.; Meroni, C.A.; Veglia, F.; Civelli, M.; Lamantia, G.; Colombo, N.; Curigliano, G.; et al. Early detection of anthracycline cardiotoxicity and improvement with heart failure therapy. Circulation 2015, 131, 1981–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Von Hoff, D.D.; Layard, M.W.; Basa, P.; Davis, H.L., Jr.; Von Hoff, A.L.; Rozencweig, M.; Muggia, F.M. Risk factors for doxorubicin-induced congestive heart failure. Ann. Intern. Med. 1979, 91, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Swain, S.M.; Whaley, F.S.; Ewer, M.S. Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: A retrospective analysis of three trials. Cancer 2003, 97, 2869–2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schwartz, R.G.; McKenzie, W.B.; Alexander, J.; Sager, P.; D’Souza, A.; Manatunga, A.; Schwartz, P.E.; Berger, H.J.; Setaro, J.; Surkin, L.; et al. Congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction complicating doxorubicin therapy. Seven-year experience using serial radionuclide angiocardiography. Am. J. Med. 1987, 82, 1109–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Keefe, D.L. Trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity. Cancer 2002, 95, 1592–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Perez, E.A.; Rodeheffer, R. Clinical cardiac tolerability of trastuzumab. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fiuza, M. Cardiotoxicity associated with trastuzumab treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. Adv. Ther. 2009, 26 (Suppl. 1), S9–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mehta, L.S.; Watson, K.E.; Barac, A.; Beckie, T.M.; Bittner, V.; Cruz-Flores, S.; Dent, S.; Kondapalli, L.; Ky, B.; Okwuosa, T.; et al. Cardiovascular Disease and Breast Cancer: Where These Entities Intersect: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2018, 137, e30–e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Roger, V.L.; Weston, S.A.; Redfield, M.M.; Hellermann-Homan, J.P.; Killian, J.; Yawn, B.P.; Jacobsen, S.J. Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA 2004, 292, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Shen, L.; Jhund, P.S.; Petrie, M.C.; Claggett, B.L.; Barlera, S.; Cleland, J.G.F.; Dargie, H.J.; Granger, C.B.; Kjekshus, J.; Kober, L.; et al. Declining Risk of Sudden Death in Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yoo, S.; Lee, H.B.; Han, W.; Noh, D.Y.; Park, S.K.; Kim, W.H.; Kim, J.T. Total Intravenous Anesthesia versus Inhalation Anesthesia for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesthesiology 2019, 130, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Oh, T.K.; Kim, H.H.; Jeon, Y.T. Retrospective analysis of 1-year mortality after gastric cancer surgery: Total intravenous anesthesia versus volatile anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2019, 63, 1169–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, J.H.; Kang, S.H.; Kim, Y.; Kim, H.A.; Kim, B.S. Effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on recurrence and overall survival in patients after modified radical mastectomy: A retrospective study. Korean J. Anesth. 2016, 69, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Enlund, M.; Berglund, A.; Ahlstrand, R.; Wallden, J.; Lundberg, J.; Warnberg, F.; Ekman, A.; Sjoblom Widfeldt, N.; Enlund, A.; Bergkvist, L. Survival after primary breast cancer surgery following propofol or sevoflurane general anesthesia-A retrospective, multicenter, database analysis of 6305 Swedish patients. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2020, 64, 1048–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Makito, K.; Matsui, H.; Fushimi, K.; Yasunaga, H. Volatile versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Cancer Prognosis in Patients Having Digestive Cancer Surgery. Anesthesiology 2020, 133, 764–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Groenning, B.A.; Nilsson, J.C.; Sondergaard, L.; Pedersen, F.; Trawinski, J.; Baumann, M.; Larsson, H.B.; Hildebrandt, P.R. Detection of left ventricular enlargement and impaired systolic function with plasma N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide concentrations. Am. Hear. J. 2002, 143, 923–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cheng, C.L.; Lee, C.H.; Chen, P.S.; Li, Y.H.; Lin, S.J.; Yang, Y.H. Validation of acute myocardial infarction cases in the national health insurance research database in taiwan. J. Epidemiol. 2014, 24, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Cheng, C.L.; Kao, Y.H.; Lin, S.J.; Lee, C.H.; Lai, M.L. Validation of the National Health Insurance Research Database with ischemic stroke cases in Taiwan. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2011, 20, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lin, C.C.; Lai, M.S.; Syu, C.Y.; Chang, S.C.; Tseng, F.Y. Accuracy of diabetes diagnosis in health insurance claims data in Taiwan. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2005, 104, 157–163. [Google Scholar]
Jpm 11 01358 g001 550
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier overall survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier overall survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Jpm 11 01358 g001
Jpm 11 01358 g002 550
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier locoregional recurrence-free survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier locoregional recurrence-free survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Jpm 11 01358 g002
Jpm 11 01358 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier distant metastasis–free survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier distant metastasis–free survival curves of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Jpm 11 01358 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographics of patients with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who received breast conservative surgery in the propensity score–weighted population through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
Table 1. Demographics of patients with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who received breast conservative surgery in the propensity score–weighted population through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
Propensity Score–Weighted Population
Adjuvant WBRT
N = 223		Non-Adjuvant WBRT
N = 71
Variable n(%)n(%)Standardized Difference
AgeMean (SD)62.3(11.4)63.5(11.6)0.0311
Median (IQR, Q1–Q3)63(54–70)63(54–71)
20–65167(73.6)52(73.2)0.0224
>6560(26.4)19(26.8)
Diagnosis year2008–201289(39.2)28(39.4)0.0000
2013–2017138(60.8)43(60.6)
CCI score073(32.7)22(31.0)0.0231
≥1150(67.3)49(69.0)
DifferentiationI44(19.7)16(22.5)-
II112(50.2)34(47.9)0.0566
III67(30.0)21(29.6)0.0452
AJCC clinical stageI112(50.2)33(46.5)0.0831
II–III111(49.8)38(53.5)
AJCC pathologic stageI109(48.9)34(47.9)-
II97(43.5)32(45.1)0.0242
III18(8.1)6(8.5)0.0170
pTpT1137(61.4)41(57.7)0.0737
pT2–486(38.6)30(42.3)
pNpN0164(73.5)49(69.0)0.0705
pN1–359(26.5)22(31.0)
Hypertension 161(72.2)50(70.4)0.0584
Hyperlipidemia 98(43.9)34(47.9)0.0871
CKD 67(30.0)32(45.1)0.0171
Coronary arterial diseases 88(39.5)27(38.0)0.0352
One-vessel stenosis60(26.9)18(25.4)
Two-vessel stenosis28(12.6)9(12.7)
Valvular disease 17(7.6)6(8.5)0.0276
Aortic stenosis/regurgitation10(4.5)3(4.2)
Mitral stenosis/regurgitation7(3.1)3(4.2)
Atrial fibrillation 6026.91926.80.0592
Cardiomyopathy 71(31.8)23(32.4)0.0381
Ventricular arrhythmias 6(2.7)2(2.8)0.0114
Diabetes mellitus 76(34.1)27(38.0)0.0779
Statins 58(26.0)20(28.2)0.0923
Antithrombotic therapy 78(35.0)28(39.4)0.0610
Diuretic 89(39.9)29(40.8)0.0276
Beta blockers 133(59.6)46(64.8)0.0110
Renin-angiotensin system inhibitor 166(74.4)51(71.8)0.0853
Chemotherapy with anthracycline 103(46.2)34(47.9)0.0072
Hormone receptor positive 109(48.9)35(49.3)0.0089
Trastuzumab use 21(9.3)7(9.9)0.0131
Nodal surgeryALND139(61.2)40(56.3)0.0618
SLNB84(38.8)31(43.7)
Hospital levelAcademic center110(49.3)35(49.3)0.0000
Non-academic center113(50.7)36(50.7)
Income<NTD 18,00065(29.1)20(28.2)-
NTD 18,000–24,00074(33.2)23(32.4)0.0231
NTD 24,000–36,00040(17.9)12(16.9)0.0143
>NTD 36,00044(19.7)16(22.5)0.0712
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; Her-2, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2; WBRT, whole-breast radiotherapy; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; T, tumor; N, nodal; pT, pathologic tumor stage; pN, pathologic nodal stage; ALND, axillary lymph node dissection; SNLB, sentinel lymph node biopsy; NTD, New Taiwan dollar.
Table
Table 2. Multivariate analysis of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
Table 2. Multivariate analysis of propensity score–weighted population with breast cancer and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving breast conservative surgery.
All-Cause DeathLocal RecurrenceDistant Metastasis
aHR *(95% CI)p ValueaHR *(95% CI)p ValueaHR *(95% CI)p Value
Adjuvant WBRTNoRef 0.0424Ref 0.0017Ref 0.0004
Yes0.60(0.44–0.94) 0.33(0.24–0.71) 0.37(0.22–0.63)
Age20–65Ref 0.0001Ref 0.5641Ref 0.5028
>651.31(1.12–3.01) 1.09(0.71–1.74) 1.49(0.72–1.79)
Diagnosis year2009–2012Ref 0.4796.Ref 0.2554Ref 0.7472
2013–20170.83(0.76–1.38) 0.75(0.53–1.11) 0.91(0.63–1.58)
CCI score0Ref 0.0385Ref 0.5028Ref 0.7631
≥11.15(1.09–1.66) 1.03 (0.70–1.68) 1.02 (0.57–1.55)
Hypertension Yes1.15(0.70–1.88)0.54820.93(0.61–1.43)0.82040.95(0.69–1.33)0.8861
Hyperlipidemia Yes1.06(0.66–2.01)0.64310.94(0.61–1.61)0.84210.92(0.65–1.61)0.8141
CKDYes1.17(0.88–1.76)0.51570.88(0.70–1.81)0.73150.82(0.59–1.39)0.6929
Coronary arterial diseasesNoRef 0.3868Ref 0.5628Ref 0.5806
One-vessel stenosis1.26(0.77–1.98) 0.81(0.52–1.19) 0.88(0.71–1.44)
Two-vessel stenosis1.36(0.80–2.33) 0.77(0.50–1.23) 0.87(0.78–1.57)
Valvular diseaseNoRef 0.3598Ref 0.6724.Ref 0.6682
Aortic stenosis/regurgitation1.16(0.76–2.18) 0.98 (0.61–1.41) 0.96 (0.54–1.77)0.7963
Mitral stenosis/regurgitation1.17(0.74–2.10) 0.94 (0.59–1.33) 0.95 (0.50–1.91)0.8190
Atrial fibrillationYes1.08(0.76–1.40)0.32000.79(0.49–1.80)0.42190.90(0.67–2.50)0.5893
Cardiomyopathy Yes1.13(0.88–1.65)0.13120.77(0.45–1.82)0.34040.92(0.63–2.57)0.5322
Ventricular arrhythmiasYes1.08(0.88–1.46)0.17860.89 (0.53–2.67)0.27620.76(0.41–1.39)0.3174
DiabetesYes1.06(0.84–1.14)0.31270.91(0.67–1.20)0.47140.68(0.52–1.28)0.8784
Statins Yes0.91(0.70–1.65)0.43870.94(0.55–1.76)0.54940.90(0.54–1.91)0.5499
Antithrombotic therapyYes1.03(0.77–1.51)0.26090.97 (0.60–2.11)0.49800.88(0.51–1.90)0.4251
Diuretic Yes1.01(0.60–2.60)0.44270.95 (0.58–2.29)0.50680.89(0.53–2.42)0.5778
Beta blockersYes0.88(0.68–1.43)0.20800.90(0.50–2.99)0.40500.86(0.44–1.84)0.3160
Renin-angiotensin system inhibitorYes0.86(0.54–1.97)0.58100.96(0.86–2.36)0.41690.87(0.57–1.81)0.5308
pTpT1Ref 0.0217Ref 0.0316Ref 0.0245
pT2–41.28(1.05–2.28) 1.69(1.03–2.73) 1.41(1.18–3.17)
pNpN0Ref 0.0017Ref 0.0072Ref 0.0153
pN1–32.31(1.30–4.24) 1.72(1.35–4.30) 1.66(1.24–2.69)
DifferentiationIRef 0.0003Ref 0.0001Ref 0.0001
II1.44(1.10–2.00) 1.86 (1.43–2.18) 1.82 (1.39–2.79)
III1.71(1.24–2.13) 1.91 (1.44–2.56) 1.96 (1.51–2.67)
Chemotherapy with anthracyclineYes0.97(0.35–1.54)0.26530.80(0.39–1.81)0.28760.82(0.60–1.77)0.4876
Hormone receptor positiveYes0.70(0.50–0.89)0.00850.68(0.51–0.88)0.00280.61 (0.38–0.74)0.0016
Trastuzumab useYes1.05(0.48–2.50)0.88931.60 (0.71–3.70)0.89741.08(0.70–1.88)0.6432
Nodal surgeryALNDRef 0.8742Ref 0.3682Ref 0.3531
SLNB1.12(0.93–1.24) 1.25(0.81–2.25) 1.37 (0.71–2.78)
Hospital levelMedical centersRef 0.1667Ref 0.4539Ref 0.7830
Non-medical centers1.09(0.80–1.25) 0.91(0.60–2.55) 0.95(0.70–1.50)
Income <NTD 18,000Ref 0.4267Ref 0.8541Ref 0.7652
NTD 18,000–24,0001.31(0.60–2.94) 1.21(0.68–2.16) 1.14(0.65–1.98)
NTD 24,000–36,0001.51(0.85–2.67) 1.38(0.71–2.47) 1.51(0.76–2.19)
>NTD 36,0001.66(0.90–3.00) 1.71(0.92–2.98) 2.11(0.81–3.22)
Abbrevations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratios; CIs, confidence intervals; HR, hormone receptor; Her-2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2; WBRT, whole-breast radiotherapy; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; T, tumor; N, nodal; pT, pathologic tumor stage; pN, pathologic nodal stage; ALND, axillary lymph node dissection; SNLB, sentinel lymph node biopsy; ref, reference group; NTD, New Taiwan dollar. * All covariates mentioned in Table 2 were adjusted.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, J.; Sum, S.-Y.; Hsu, J.-G.; Chiang, M.-F.; Lee, T.-S.; Wu, S.-Y. Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy Improve Survival in Women with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11121358

AMA Style

Zhang J, Sum S-Y, Hsu J-G, Chiang M-F, Lee T-S, Wu S-Y. Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy Improve Survival in Women with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(12):1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11121358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jiaqiang, Shao-Yin Sum, Jeng-Guan Hsu, Ming-Feng Chiang, Tian-Shyug Lee, and Szu-Yuan Wu. 2021. "Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy Improve Survival in Women with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 12: 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11121358

APA Style

Zhang, J., Sum, S. -Y., Hsu, J. -G., Chiang, M. -F., Lee, T. -S., & Wu, S. -Y. (2021). Adjuvant Whole Breast Radiotherapy Improve Survival in Women with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Breast-Conserving Surgery. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 11(12), 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11121358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop