Trial Outcomes & Findings for Impact of Radiation Therapy on Breast Conservation in DCIS (NCT NCT02248662)
NCT ID: NCT02248662
Last Updated: 2019-09-06
Results Overview
The investigators defined treatment intensity in a health services area to be the proportion of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for DCIS who receive radiation therapy. Because a proportion is challenging to analyze statistically given that the precision of the estimate depends on the size of the denominator which varies across service areas, we used hierarchical modeling to categorize the health service areas into three categories (low, medium, high), using a latent variable to determine which health service area belongs to each of the three categories. The cutoffs separating the groups were based on the hierarchical model, taking the precision of the estimated proportion of patients receiving radiation into account. Health service areas with the highest proportions of patients receiving radiation were assigned to the "high" cluster; those with the lowest proportions to the "low" cluster; and those in the between to the "medium" cluster.
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Target enrollment
3436 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
20 Years
Results posted on
2019-09-06
Participant Flow
The computer model included data from sources including the NSABP B-17 and B-24 trials; the UK, Australia, and New Zealand ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) trial; an observational study of newly diagnosed patients with DCIS treated in British Columbia; and SEER databases. The researchers also conducted two retrospective studies.
Originally, 38,514 total records from each database used for this study were screened for enrollment into the final cohort. After eligibility criteria were applied to the sample, the final sample size was 3,436.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare
SEER-Medicare diagnoses from 1990-2009 linked to Medicare claims through 2010
Breast Conserving Surgery +/- Radiotherapy or Mastectomy for secondary breast cancer
|
Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
Data was collected from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database on patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) between 1990 and 2011.
Breast Conserving Surgery +/- Radiotherapy or Mastectomy for secondary breast cancer
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
5320
|
33194
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
757
|
2679
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
4563
|
30515
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
SEER
n=2679 Participants
Data was collected from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database on patients with DCIS between 1990 and 2011.
|
SEER-Medicare
n=757 Participants
SEER-Medicaid diagnoses from 1990-2009 linked to Medicare claims through 2010
|
Total
n=3436 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Customized
Age at Secondary Diagnosis · <50 years
|
363 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
363 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Age at Secondary Diagnosis · 50 to 59 years
|
605 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
605 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Age at Secondary Diagnosis · 60 to 69 years
|
679 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
63 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
742 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Age at Secondary Diagnosis · 70 to 90 years
|
1032 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
694 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1726 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
2679 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
757 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
3436 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
0 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
216 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
42 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
258 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
2463 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
715 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
3178 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · White
|
2133 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
658 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
2791 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Black
|
283 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
64 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
347 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Other
|
263 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
35 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
298 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Household Income Within Census Data Quintiles
1 (lowest)
|
763 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
137 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
900 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Household Income Within Census Data Quintiles
2
|
301 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
157 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
458 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Household Income Within Census Data Quintiles
3
|
461 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
153 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
614 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Household Income Within Census Data Quintiles
4
|
608 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
133 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
741 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Household Income Within Census Data Quintiles
5 (highest)
|
546 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
177 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
723 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants in Education Levels Within Census Data Quintiles
1 (lowest)
|
664 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
156 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
820 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants in Education Levels Within Census Data Quintiles
2
|
490 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
167 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
657 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants in Education Levels Within Census Data Quintiles
3
|
459 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
143 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
602 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants in Education Levels Within Census Data Quintiles
4
|
514 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
148 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
662 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants in Education Levels Within Census Data Quintiles
5 (highest)
|
552 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
143 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
695 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Residence
Urban
|
2560 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
701 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
3261 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Residence
Rural
|
119 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
56 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
175 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with a Secondary SEER Diagnosis
No
|
0 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
370 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
370 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with a Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Yes
|
2679 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
387 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
3066 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants with Secondary SEER Diagnoses and Staging
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
|
843 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
111 Participants
n=387 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
954 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
|
Number of Participants with Secondary SEER Diagnoses and Staging
Stage I
|
1185 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
177 Participants
n=387 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
1362 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
|
Number of Participants with Secondary SEER Diagnoses and Staging
Stage II-III
|
523 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
71 Participants
n=387 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
594 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
|
Number of Participants with Secondary SEER Diagnoses and Staging
Unknown
|
128 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
28 Participants
n=387 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
156 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The number of cases with a secondary SEER diagnosis was less than the number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Sometimes, it was clear that patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but the stage was unclear. The total number of SEER-Medicare cases in the final analysis was 387.
|
|
Number of Participants with ER Status for Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Positive
|
1675 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
227 Participants
n=387 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
1902 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
|
Number of Participants with ER Status for Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Negative
|
324 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
42 Participants
n=387 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
366 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
|
Number of Participants with ER Status for Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Unknown
|
680 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
118 Participants
n=387 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
798 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The total number of cases with ER status information was less than the overall number of cases included in this cohort at baseline. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was unclear whether the diagnosis was ER+ or ER-.
|
|
Number of Participants with Laterality for Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Ipsilateral
|
1619 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
239 Participants
n=387 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
1858 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
|
Number of Participants with Laterality for Secondary SEER Diagnosis
Contralateral
|
1060 Participants
n=2679 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
148 Participants
n=387 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
1208 Participants
n=3066 Participants • The total number of cases with laterality information was less than the number of cases included in this cohort. Analysis was performed only on the number of cases that had a secondary SEER diagnosis. In some instances, it was clear patients had a secondary SEER diagnosis, but it was not clear whether the diagnosis was ipsilateral or contralateral.
|
|
Year of secondary diagnosis
1990-1995
|
133 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
47 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
180 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Year of secondary diagnosis
1996-2000
|
426 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
128 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
554 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Year of secondary diagnosis
2001-2005
|
778 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
263 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1041 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Year of secondary diagnosis
2006-2011
|
1342 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
319 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1661 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Interval between diagnoses
|
4.6 years
n=2679 Participants
|
2.4 years
n=757 Participants
|
NA years
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Treatment intensity for primary DCIS
Low (HSAs with lowest proportion receiving RT)
|
966 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
261 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1227 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Treatment intensity for primary DCIS
Medium
|
885 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
274 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1159 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Treatment intensity for primary DCIS
High (HSAs with highest proportion receiving RT)
|
828 Participants
n=2679 Participants
|
222 Participants
n=757 Participants
|
1050 Participants
n=3436 Participants
|
|
Charlson comorbidity score
0-1
|
—
|
686 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
686 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
|
Charlson comorbidity score
2+
|
—
|
71 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
71 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
|
Distance to nearest radiation facility
<10 miles
|
—
|
634 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and is no longer available to us.
|
634 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and is no longer available to us.
|
|
Distance to nearest radiation facility
10+ miles
|
—
|
123 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and is no longer available to us.
|
123 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and is no longer available to us.
|
|
Chemotherapy for secondary breast event
No
|
—
|
719 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
719 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
|
Chemotherapy for secondary breast event
Yes
|
—
|
38 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
38 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
|
MRI in 6 months before secondary breast event
No
|
—
|
706 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
706 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
|
MRI in 6 months before secondary breast event
Yes
|
—
|
51 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
51 Participants
n=757 Participants • Data was not collected for the SEER group and the data is no longer available to us.
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 20 YearsThe investigators defined treatment intensity in a health services area to be the proportion of patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for DCIS who receive radiation therapy. Because a proportion is challenging to analyze statistically given that the precision of the estimate depends on the size of the denominator which varies across service areas, we used hierarchical modeling to categorize the health service areas into three categories (low, medium, high), using a latent variable to determine which health service area belongs to each of the three categories. The cutoffs separating the groups were based on the hierarchical model, taking the precision of the estimated proportion of patients receiving radiation into account. Health service areas with the highest proportions of patients receiving radiation were assigned to the "high" cluster; those with the lowest proportions to the "low" cluster; and those in the between to the "medium" cluster.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
SEER - Low Treatment Cluster
n=966 Participants
Low treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
SEER-Medium Treatment Cluster
n=885 Participants
Medium treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
SEER - High Treatment Cluster
n=828 Participants
High treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
SEER-Medicare - Low Treatment Cluster
n=222 Participants
Low treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
SEER-Medicare - Medium Treatment Cluster
n=274 Participants
Medium treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
SEER Medicare - High Treatment Cluster
n=261 Participants
High treatment intensity for primary DCIS
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Median income: Quintile 1 (lowest)
|
570 Participants
|
80 Participants
|
108 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
36 Participants
|
68 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Residence: Rural
|
19 Participants
|
27 Participants
|
66 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
37 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Secondary SEER Diagnosis: No
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
98 Participants
|
132 Participants
|
141 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Secondary SEER Diagnosis: Yes
|
966 Participants
|
885 Participants
|
828 Participants
|
124 Participants
|
142 Participants
|
120 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Stage of secondary SEER Diagnosis: DCIS
|
290 Participants
|
274 Participants
|
282 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
47 Participants
|
34 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Stage of secondary SEER Diagnosis: Stage I
|
425 Participants
|
395 Participants
|
364 Participants
|
60 Participants
|
63 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Stage of secondary SEER Diagnosis: Stage II-III
|
213 Participants
|
177 Participants
|
132 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Stage of secondary SEER Diagnosis: Unknown
|
48 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
50 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
ER status of secondary SEER diagnosis: Positive
|
609 Participants
|
566 Participants
|
497 Participants
|
75 Participants
|
85 Participants
|
68 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
ER status of secondary SEER diagnosis: Negative
|
106 Participants
|
124 Participants
|
99 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
ER status of secondary SEER diagnosis: Unknown
|
251 Participants
|
195 Participants
|
232 Participants
|
38 Participants
|
44 Participants
|
37 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Laterality of secondary SEER diagnosis:Ipsilateral
|
580 Participants
|
522 Participants
|
513 Participants
|
82 Participants
|
88 Participants
|
70 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Laterality of secondary SEER diag.: Contralateral
|
386 Participants
|
363 Participants
|
315 Participants
|
42 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
50 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Year of secondary diag.: 1990-1995
|
39 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
58 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Year of secondary diag.: 1996-2000
|
145 Participants
|
97 Participants
|
190 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
52 Participants
|
44 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Year of secondary diag.: 2001-2005
|
319 Participants
|
239 Participants
|
215 Participants
|
82 Participants
|
88 Participants
|
91 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Year of secondary diag.: 2006-2011
|
464 Participants
|
513 Participants
|
364 Participants
|
89 Participants
|
121 Participants
|
110 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Charlson comorbidity score: 0-1
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
202 Participants
|
252 Participants
|
232 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Charlson comorbidity score: 2+
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
29 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Distance to nearest radiation facility: <10 mi
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
206 Participants
|
225 Participants
|
201 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Distance to nearest radiation facility: 10+ mi
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
49 Participants
|
60 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Chemotherapy for secondary breast event: No
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
209 Participants
|
260 Participants
|
251 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Chemotherapy for secondary breast event: Yes
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Age at secondary diagnosis: <50
|
145 Participants
|
115 Participants
|
99 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Age at secondary diagnosis:50 to 59
|
213 Participants
|
230 Participants
|
157 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Age at secondary diagnosis: 60 to 69
|
232 Participants
|
221 Participants
|
232 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Age at secondary diagnosis: 70 to 90
|
377 Participants
|
318 Participants
|
339 Participants
|
211 Participants
|
255 Participants
|
230 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Race: White
|
715 Participants
|
752 Participants
|
662 Participants
|
191 Participants
|
252 Participants
|
217 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Race: Black
|
106 Participants
|
71 Participants
|
99 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
34 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Race: Other
|
135 Participants
|
62 Participants
|
66 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Hispanic: No
|
831 Participants
|
823 Participants
|
811 Participants
|
206 Participants
|
258 Participants
|
251 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Hispanic: Yes
|
135 Participants
|
62 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Median income: Quintile 2
|
10 Participants
|
97 Participants
|
190 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
71 Participants
|
52 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Median income: Quintile 3
|
39 Participants
|
212 Participants
|
215 Participants
|
42 Participants
|
63 Participants
|
47 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Median income: Quintile 4
|
222 Participants
|
221 Participants
|
157 Participants
|
40 Participants
|
52 Participants
|
42 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Median income: Quintile 5 (highest)
|
116 Participants
|
274 Participants
|
157 Participants
|
73 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
50 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
High school educated, Quintile 1 (lowest)
|
551 Participants
|
62 Participants
|
58 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
36 Participants
|
68 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
High school educated, Quintile 2
|
222 Participants
|
106 Participants
|
157 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
71 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
High school educated, Quintile 3
|
39 Participants
|
212 Participants
|
215 Participants
|
42 Participants
|
63 Participants
|
47 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
High school educated, Quintile 4
|
10 Participants
|
319 Participants
|
132 Participants
|
40 Participants
|
52 Participants
|
48 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
High school educated, Quintile 5 (highest)
|
116 Participants
|
274 Participants
|
157 Participants
|
73 Participants
|
55 Participants
|
50 Participants
|
|
Association Between Patient Characteristics and Three-Level Cluster of Treatment Intensity for Primary DCIS
Residence: Urban
|
947 Participants
|
858 Participants
|
762 Participants
|
218 Participants
|
258 Participants
|
224 Participants
|
Adverse Events
SEER
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
SEER-Medicare
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place