No abstract

No abstract

Marital status proved to be an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with breast cancer. We therefore strove to explore the impact of dynamic changes in marital status on the prognosis of breast cancer patients. We selected patients meeting the eligibility criteria from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer database. We then used multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model to analyze the effect of dynamic changes in marital status on the prognosis of overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific special survival (BCSS). Compared with the patients in the Single–Single group and the divorced/separated/widowed–divorced/separated/widowed (DSW–DSW) group, patients in the Married–Married group were significantly associated with better BCSS (HR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03–1.19, P < 0.001; HR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.14–1.25, P < 0.001, respectively) and OS (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.20–1.30, P < 0.001; HR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.45–1.54, P < 0.001, respectively). In contrast to the DSW–DSW group, the Single–Single group and the DSW–Married group showed similar BCSS (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92–1.05, P = 0.660; HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97–1.15, P = 0.193, respectively) but better OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09–1.19, P < 0.001; HR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.25–1.40, P < 0.001, respectively). Compared with the Single–Single group, the Single–Married group showed significantly better BCSS (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07–1.36, P = 0.003) but no difference in OS (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98–1.18, P = 0.102); In contrast to the Married–DSW group, the Married–Married group exhibited better BCSS (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18, P < 0.001) and OS (HR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.22–1.32, P < 0.001). Our study demonstrated that, regardless of their previous marital status, married patients had a better prognosis than unmarried patients. Moreover, single patients obtained better survival outcomes than DSW patients. Therefore, it is necessary to proactively provide single and DSW individuals with appropriate social and psychological support that would benefit them.

Purpose:The clinical benefits provided by using anthracycline-contained regimens in patients with early breast cancer (EBC) remain uncertain. This meta-analysis used data from all relevant trials to compare treatment outcomes for patients with EBC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with non–anthracycline-contained regimens or anthracycline-contained regimens.Patients and Methods:Individual patient data were collected on 7 randomized trials comparing non–anthracycline-contained regimens with anthracycline-contained regimens, a total of 14,451 women were analyzed. The hazard ratios (HR) of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and the risk ratios for grades 3 to 4 toxicities were extracted from the retrieved studies and analyzed using various statistical methods. A pooled analysis was accomplished and HR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was derived. The significant differences in DFS and OS were explored. A heterogeneity test was applied as well.Results:Among 7 eligible trials, significant differences in favor of anthracycline-contained regimens were seen in DFS (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78–0.95; P = .003) and in OS (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75–0.97; P = .01). Subgroup analyses of DFS showed similar treatment effects by hormone-receptor status and nodal status, but differential effects by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, menopausal status, and malignancy grade. Sensitive analysis showed that the DFS of taxanes and cyclophosphamide (TC) was noninferior to anthracycline-contained regiments.Conclusion:Despite failing to show noninferior to the anthracycline-contained regimens in patients with EBC, it provides evidence that both regimens significantly improved the DFS and OS, and TC regimen may be noninferior to anthracycline-contained regimens.