Impact of breast surgery on survival of patients with stage IV breast cancer: a SEER population-based propensity score matching analysis

Introduction

Stage IV breast cancer (BC) refers to the tumor which has disseminated to distant sites. It is estimated that 3–25% of female breast cancer patients might have metastatic disease at presentation (Siegel, Miller & Jemal, 2019; Miller et al., 2017; Eng et al., 2016a; Unger-Saldaña, 2014).

The main purpose of treatment for de novo stage IV breast cancer is to alleviate symptoms, improve the quality of life and prolong survival (Sanchez-Munoz et al., 2008). Advances in systemic treatment have greatly improved the control of metastatic disease and prolonged survival (Dawood et al., 2015; Corona et al., 2017). Therefore, the utility of breast surgery has become a question worth discussing. Several retrospective studies have demonstrated that local surgery was associated with a better survival in women with metastatic breast cancer (AlJohani et al., 2016; Warschkow et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2016; Arciero et al., 2019) or in specific subgroups (Rashaan et al., 2012). However, results from three prospective randomized trials have revealed discordant results with conflicting data (Fitzal et al., 2019; Soran et al., 2018; Badwe et al., 2015). In addition, it is noted that the act of surgery might accelerate metastatic growth and have an adverse effect on survival (Gunduz, Fisher & Saffer, 1979; Al-Sahaf et al., 2010; Retsky et al., 2004). Therefore, most guidelines still recommend surgical intervention in palliative situations or selected patients after response to initial systemic therapy.

To date, the role of surgery for de novo stage IV breast cancer patients is still ambiguous and no consensus exists. Accordingly, we conducted this propensity score matching analysis to investigate the impact of breast surgery on survival of stage IV breast cancer patients with data from a large population-based database (the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, SEER) collected from 2010 to 2015.

Material and Methods

Results

Clinicopathological characteristics of the selected patients

In total, 13,034 patients with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer between 2010–2015 who had complete information of breast surgery were included in this study. The patient selection flow-chart was displayed in Fig. 1. As shown in Table 1, 9,151 (70.2%) patients did not receive surgery and 3,883 (29.8%) were treated with surgery. There were significant differences between these two groups. Patients treated with breast surgery were more likely to be younger, smaller tumor size, more advanced nodal status, higher histology grade and higher proportion of bone-only metastasis. Furthermore, those who received chemotherapy and radiotherapy also tended to be treated with surgery.

Table 1:

Baseline Characteristics of stage IV patients with or without breast surgery before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

Characteristics	Before PSM				Pa	After PSM				Pa
	Surgery (n = 3, 883)		Non-Surgery (n = 9, 151)			Surgery (n = 2, 269)		Non-Surgery (n = 2, 269)
	No	%	No	%		No	%	No	%
Age (years)
20–49	1,163	30.0	1,836	20.1	<0.001	604	26.6	600	26.4	0.893
50–79	2,720	70.0	7,315	79.9		1,665	73.4	1,669	73.6
Race
White	2,841	73.2	6,747	73.7	0.012	1,643	72.4	1,641	72.3	0.917
Black	685	17.6	1,646	18.0		418	18.4	431	19.0
Others	349	9.0	712	7.8		204	9.0	193	8.5
Unknown	8	0.2	46	0.5		4	0.2	4	0.2
T stage
T1 + T2	1,903	49.0	3,675	40.2	<0.001	1,041	45.9	1,059	46.7	0.592
T3 + T4	1,980	51.0	5,476	59.8		1,228	54.1	1,210	53.3
N stage
N0 + N1	2,167	55.8	7,201	78.7	<0.001	1,426	62.8	1,458	64.3	0.324
N2 + N3	1,716	44.2	1,950	21.3		843	37.2	811	35.7
Grade
I + II	1,314	33.8	4,314	47.1	<0.001	827	36.5	847	37.3	0.196
III	2,157	55.6	3,860	42.2		1,287	56.7	1,296	57.1
Unknown	412	10.6	977	10.7		155	6.8	126	5.6
Histology
IDC	2,973	76.6	5,745	62.8	<0.001	1,673	73.7	1,694	74.7	0.343
ILC	286	7.4	868	9.5		184	8.1	158	7.0
Others	624	16.0	2,538	27.7		412	18.2	417	18.3
Molecular subtype
HR+/HER−	1,898	48.9	4,524	49.4	<0.001	1,085	47.8	1,075	47.4	0.663
HR+/HER−	662	17.0	1,320	14.4		387	17.1	393	17.3
HR −∕HER+	416	10.7	716	7.8		229	10.1	251	11.0
TNBC	652	16.8	956	10.5		413	18.2	385	17.0
Unknown	255	6.6	1,635	17.9		155	6.8	165	7.3
Chemotherapy status
Yes	2,875	74.0	4,587	50.1	<0.001	1,545	68.1	1,532	67.5	0.680
No/Unknown	1,008	26.0	4,564	49.9		724	31.9	737	32.5
Radiation status
Yes	1,802	46.4	540	5.9	<0.001	405	17.8	438	19.3	0.208
No/Unknown	2,081	53.6	8,611	94.1		1,864	82.2	1,831	80.7
Bone only metastasis
Yes	1,506	38.8	2,971	32.5	<0.001	768	33.8	780	34.4	0.707
No	2,377	61.2	6,180	67.5		1,501	66.2	1,489	65.6

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8694/table-1

Notes:

Abbreviations

PSM

propensity-score matching

HR

hormone receptor

HER2

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

TNBC

triple negative breast cancer

aThe P value was calculated among all groups by the Chi-square test.

Stratified survival analysis

Furthermore, we performed a stratified analysis according to different variables in 1:1 matched groups. The Kaplan–Meier survival function was used to generate Figs. 3 and 4 in the hierarchical analysis, which represent the overall survival between surgery and non-surgery patients with different tumor size, nodal status, molecular subtypes and status of distant metastases. The median survival time for hormone receptor positive HER2 negative (HR + HER2-) and triple negative (TNBC) subtype was 47 months (surgery) vs. 32 months (non-surgery) and 16 months (surgery) vs. 11 months (non-surgery) respectively. While for bone-only metastasis and visceral metastasis patients, the median survival time was 52 months (surgery) vs. 36 months (non-surgery) and 36 months (surgery) vs. 22 months (non-surgery) respectively. Table 4 shows the hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the surgery group, which was determined by Cox regression analysis contrasted with that of the non-surgery group. Breast surgery was indicated to significantly reduce mortality risk regardless of tumor size, nodal status, molecular subtype or status of distant metastasis. Similarly in other subgroups (Fig. 5), surgery also presented a more favorable overall survival irrespective of age, race, histology grade chemotherapy status or radiotherapy status.

Table 3:

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) in 1:1 matched propensity score matching analysis with stage IV breast cancer.

Variables	n	BCSS		OS
		HR (95% CI)	Pa	HR (95% CI)	Pa
Age (years)
20–49	1,204	Reference		Reference
50–79	3,334	1.203 (1.095–1.303)	<0.001	1.257 (1.145–1.379)	<0.001
Race
White	3,284	Reference		Reference
Black	849	1.252 (1.134–1.382)	<0.001	1.286 (1.169–1.415)	<0.001
Others	397	0.887 (0.761–1.035)	0.127	0.879 (0.751–1.021)	0.092
Unknown	8	0.179 (0.025–1.272)	0.085	0.167 (0.024–1.189)	0.074
T stage
T1 + T2	2,100	Reference		Reference
T3 + T4	2,438	1.408 (1.294–1.531)	<0.001	1.407 (1.297–1.526)	<0.001
N stage
N0 + N1	2,884	Reference		Reference
N2 + N3	1,654	1.091 (1.003–1.185)	0.042	1.098 (1.012–1.190)	0.024
Grade
I + II	1,674	Reference		Reference
III + IV	2,583	1.587 (1.436–1.753)	<0.001	1.517 (1.378–1.670)	<0.001
Unknown	281	1.279 (1.118–1.464)	<0.001	1.242 (1.090–1.414)	0.001
Molecular subtype
HR+/HER2−	2,160	Reference		Reference
HR+/HER2+	780	0.702 (0.612–0.805)	<0.001	0.714 (0.617–0.804)	<0.001
HR −/HER2+	480	0.923 (0.790–1.078)	0.311	0.936 (0.806–1.088)	0.388
TNBC	798	2.663 (2.373–2.988)	<0.001	2.603 (2.327–2.912)	<0.001
Unknown	320	1.485 (1.274–1.731)	<0.001	1.486 (1.282–1.722)	<0.001
Chemotherapy status
Yes	3,077	Reference		Reference
No/Unknown	1,461	1.554 (1.412–1.710)	<0.001	1.577 (1.438–1.729)	<0.001
Bone-only metastasis
Yes	1,548	Reference		Reference
No	2,990	1.390 (1.266–1.525)	<0.001	1.369 (1.252–1.498)	<0.001
Surgery status
No	2,269	Reference		Reference
Yes	2,269	0.542 (0.499–0.589)	<0.001	0.555 (0.512–0.601)	<0.001

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8694/table-3

Notes:

Abbreviation

HR

hazard ratio

CI

confidence interval

BCSS

breast cancer-specific survival

OS

overall survival

HR

hormone receptor

HER2

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

TNBC

triple negative breast cancer

aThe P value was adjusted by the multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model.

Discussion

In this large population-based cohort study, we sought to reveal the distinct outcomes of stage IV breast cancer with or without surgical intervention based on the SEER population-based data. Our findings indicated that the surgery group was associated with a better survival compared with the non-surgery group (BCSS: HR = 0.542, 95% CI [0.499–0.589], p  < 0.001; OS: hR = 0.555, 95% CI [0.512–0.601], p <  0.001). Furthermore, this survival advantage persisted in all subgroups irrespective of age, race, tumor size, nodal status, histology grade, molecular subtype, chemotherapy status, radiotherapy status or status of distant metastasis.

Metastatic breast cancer is still considered as a systemic disease and local therapy would only have little impact on outcomes (Lane et al., 2019). The primary aim of treatment is to alleviate symptoms, improve the quality of life and prolong survival. In clinical practice, the majority of patients with de novo stage IV breast cancer are recommended to receive systemic therapy including chemotherapy, anti-HER2 therapy or endocrine therapy. Surgery is mainly considered when there is tumor bleeding or ulceration (Arnedos et al., 2015). Earlier studies also suggested that the growth of distant metastases could be stimulated by removal of primary tumor. Surgical intervention could reduce angiostatin secretion and stimulate the release of growth factors, thus accelerating metastatic growth and presenting an adverse effect on survival (Gunduz, Fisher & Saffer, 1979; Al-Sahaf et al., 2010; Retsky et al., 2004; Folkman, 1996). However, other experimental studies in the murine model indicated that substantially reducing overall tumor burden with local surgery could lead to improved survival (Rashid et al., 2013). This might be explained by the primary tumor’s suppression of the immune response and its surgical removal could result in restored immunocompetence (Danna et al., 2004).

Therefore, the utility of surgical intervention in this population has long been debated. Multiple retrospective studies have revealed the potential benefit with surgery (AlJohani et al., 2016; Warschkow et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2016; Arciero et al., 2019; Rashaan et al., 2012; Gnerlich et al., 2007; Quinn et al., 2015; Leung et al., 2010; Blanchard et al., 2008; Eng et al., 2016b). The most recent study based on the SEER database (1998–2011) proposed a survival advantage with surgical intervention (median overall survival, 34 months for surgery vs. 18 months for non-surgery) (Vohra et al., 2018). However, the data about HER2 status in this study were incomplete and no stratified analysis was conducted. One study based on NCDB database also noted a benefit for stage IV breast cancer patients with surgery (Arciero et al., 2019). In a large cohort of 11,694 patients, an improved overall survival was observed for the surgery group compared with the non-surgery group after propensity score matching (HR = 0.68, 95% CI [0.63–0.72], p < 0.001). These conclusions are similar to the results in our study, providing consistent evidence from registry-based retrospective studies that well-selected patients with de novo stage IV breast cancer who undergo surgical intervention could obtain a better survival.

In spite of the evidence in several retrospective studies, supportive prospective analyses still lacked. Fitzal’s study (ABCSG-28 POSYTIVE) enrolled 90 previously untreated stage IV breast cancer patients and randomly assigned them to surgical resection followed by systemic therapy group or primary systemic therapy group (Fitzal et al., 2019). This trial was stopped early due to poor recruitment and the median overall survival for surgery and non-surgery group was 34.6 and 54.8 months respectively (HR = 0.691, 95% CI [0.358–1.333]; p = 0.267). MF07-01 trial (Soran et al., 2018) is another prospective, multicenter, phase III, randomized trial to focus on the impact of breast surgery on the survival of de novo stage IV BC patients. In this study, one group received sequential systemic therapy after primary surgery and the other group only received systemic therapy alone. Local surgery did not gained a survival advantage after 3 years of follow-up. But after 5 years of follow-up, patients with local surgery achieved a better overall survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.49–0.88]; p = 0.005). Unplanned subgroup analyses indicated that the survival benefit of breast surgery presented in patients with younger age (<55 years), ER/PR positive, HER2 negative or solitary bone-only metastases. Although these findings identified the therapeutic value of breast surgery and suggested several factors such as molecular subtype or metastatic site that should be taken into consideration, controversy still existed for the procedure of surgical resection followed by systemic therapy did not accord with the clinical practice now. The other prospective trial by Badwe et al. (Badwe et al., 2015) randomly included 350 previously untreated de novo metastatic BC patients from India between 2005 to 2013. Median overall survival was 19.2 months (95% CI [15.98–22.46]) in the surgery group and 20.5 months (16.96–23.98) in the non-surgery group (HR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.81–1.34]; p = 0.79). The uncertain effect of surgery in this study might be attributed to the fact that only few patients enrolled received paclitaxel-based chemotherapy and most of HER2 positive patients did not take anti-HER2 therapy.

Our current study of the SEER database provided strong retrospective data of breast surgery in stage IV breast cancer. It is expected that patients with lower disease burden and better prognostic factors such as ER+HER- subtype or bone-only metastasis are more likely to undertake surgery, thereby resulting a better prognosis. In a matched paired retrospective analysis, it is noted that selection bias in stage IV breast cancer could affect the survival outcomes (Cady et al., 2008). Therefore, propensity score matching analysis was applied in our study to balance covariates in different groups and reduce selection bias. The results of propensity score matching indicated that surgical intervention obtained a significant survival benefit. Furthermore, patients with surgery were shown to significantly reduce mortality risk in different subgroups, regardless of age, race, histology grade, tumor size, nodal status, molecular subtype, chemotherapy status or status of distant metastasis, suggesting that breast surgery might have independent therapeutic value to improve survival in stage IV breast cancer. However, one point that should be mentioned is a relatively poor survival for stage IV triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. The median survival time for TNBC patients was 16 months (surgery) vs. 11 months (non-surgery) respectively. Although surgical intervention revealed a better survival outcome, whether these patients should received surgery required further discussion. For patients with breast surgery, we also performed a multivariate analysis. Type of surgery (masctomy or breast conserving surgery) remained irrelevant to the survival, while radiotherapy was identified to be a significantly favorable factor both in BCSS and OS (HR = 0.819, 95% CI [0.694–0.966], p = 0.018; HR = 0.783, 95% CI [0.667–0.920], p = 0.003).

Stage IV breast cancer is a group of highly heterogeneous disease. Advances in systemic treatment have greatly improved the control of metastases disease. Five-year disease special survival of de novo breast cancer has been improved from 28% (1990–1998) to 55% (2005–2010) (Malmgren et al., 2018). Therefore, local treatment might play a more important role than conventionally considered in metastatic breast cancer patients. However, several limitations should also be mentioned in our study. Firstly, although propensity score matching analysis was utilized, selection bias (regarding the retrospective design) and guarantee time bias (those who do not live long enough to undergo surgery are classified to the no-surgery group) still existed. Secondly, information about anti-HER2 targeted therapy and endocrine therapy is absent, while the regimen of chemotherapy and the exact site of radiotherapy (primary tumor or metastasis site such as bone) are also unavailable from the SEER database. Data on performance status and comorbidities are also not presented for they are vital as these could be the factors that prevailed in surgery decision-making process. Thirdly, the status of disease burden is incomplete (SEER database does not provide the number of metastases, but only with the information of the major sites, such as bone, lung, liver, brain and distant lymph nodes). In addition, a possibility of late diagnosis of metastatic disease could also impact the interpretation of the results (For in SEER database, the initial de novo breast cancer is defined if metastases are diagnosed in the first four months after the diagnosis). Lastly, we could not determine the timing of surgery for patients included, whether the breast surgery was performed after systemic treatment or at initial diagnosis is also unknown.

Conclusion

Our study provided additional evidence that patients with stage IV breast cancer could benefit from surgical treatment. Future multicenter, large-scale prospective studies with long-term follow-up are still warranted.

Supplemental Information