BackgroundResearch on the incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of female breast and gynecologic cancers (FeBGCs) and the relevant risk factors for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are valuable for policy-making in China. We aimed to estimate the incidence, deaths, and DALYs and predict epidemiological trends of FeBGCs among AYAs in China between 1990 and 2019.MethodsData from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study between 1990 and 2019 in 195 countries and territories were retrieved. Data about the number of FeBGC incident cases, deaths, DALYs, age-standardized rates (ASRs), and estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) were extracted. A comparative risk assessment framework was performed to estimate the risk factors attributable to breast cancer deaths and DALYs, and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were fitted for time-series analysis to predict female cancer morbidity and mortality among Chinese AYAs until 2030.ResultsIn 2019, there are 61,038 incidence cases, 8,944 deaths, and 529,380 DALYs of FeBGCs among the AYAs in China, respectively. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) values were positive scores (>0) in ASIRs and negative scores (<0) in ASMR and ASDR. Furthermore, in 2030, the incidence rate of FeBGCs would grow to 30.49 per 100,000 in China, while the mortality rate would maintain a steady state. Of the deaths and DALYs, diet high in red meat was the greatest contributor to breast cancer, while a high body mass index (BMI) was the greatest contributor to cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancers.ConclusionThe increasing Chinese FeBGC burden is mainly observed in AYAs and non-red meat diet, and the control of body weight could reduce FeBGC burden in China.

BackgroundSentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has been widely recognized as an excellent surgical and staging procedure for early-stage breast cancer, and its development has greatly improved the detection of micrometastases. However, the axillary treatment of micrometastasis has been the subject of much debate.MethodsWe identified 427,131 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2010 to 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients whose nodal status was micrometastases (pTxN1miM0) were classified into two groups: the SLNB only group and SLNB with complete ALND group, and we used these classifications to carry out propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis. The primary and secondary endpoints were OS and BCSS, respectively. We then implemented the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model and used Fine and Gray competitive risk regression to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality.ResultsAfter the PSM, 1,833 pairs were included in total. The SLNB with complete ALND showed no significant difference in OS (HR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.84-1.28, P=0.73) or BCSS (HR= 1.03, 95% CI: 0.79-1.35, P=0.82) compared to the SLNB only group, and axillary treatment was not associated with breast cancer-specific death (BCSD) (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.86-1.48, P=0.400) or other cause-specific death (OCSD) (HR=0.98, 95% CI:0.70-1.38, P=0.920). There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of BCSD (Grey’s test, P=0.819) or OCSD (Grey’s test, P=0.788) for between the two groups either. For different molecular subtypes, patients in the SLNB only group showed no statistically significant differences from those in the SLNB with complete ALND group with Luminal A (HR=1.00, 95% CI:0.76-1.32, P=0.98) or Luminal B (HR=0.82, 95% CI:0.42-1.62, P=0.55) but similar OS to HER2-enriched (HR=1.58, 95% CI:0.81-3.07, P=0.19) or triple negative breast cancers (HR=1.18, 95% CI:0.76-1.81, P=0.46).ConclusionsOur results suggest that in early breast cancer patients with micrometastasis, complete ALND does not seem to be required and that SLNB suffices to control locoregional and distant disease, with no significant adverse effects on survival compared to complete ALND.

IntroductionDue to the lack of randomized controlled trial, the effectiveness and oncological safety of nipple-excising breast-conserving therapy (NE-BCT) for female breast cancer (FBC) remains unclear. We aimed to explore and investigate the prognostic value of NE-BCT versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving therapy (NS-BCT) for patients with early FBC.MethodsIn this cohort study, data between NE-BCT and NS-BCT groups of 276,661 patients diagnosed with tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage 0–III FBC from 1998 to 2015 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Propensity score matching analysis, Kaplan–Meier, X-tile, Cox proportional hazards model, and competing risk model were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and oncological safety for patients in NE-BCT and NS-BCT groups.ResultsA total of 1,731 (0.63%) patients received NE-BCT (NE-BCT group) and 274,930 (99.37%) patients received NS-BCT (NS-BCT group); 44,070 subjects died after a median follow-up time of 77 months (ranging from 1 to 227 months). In the propensity score matching (PSM) cohort, NE-BCT was found to be an adversely independent prognostic factor affecting overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.45, p=0.0078]. Subjects in NE-BCT group had similar breast-cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 0.88–1.52, p=0.30) and worse other-causes-specific death (OCSD) (HR, 1.217; 95%CI, 1.002–1.478, p=0.048<0.05) in comparison with those in the NS-BCT group.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that the administration of NE-BCT is oncologically safe and reliable and can be widely recommended in clinics for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.