
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39214662
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078816
bmjopen-2023-078816
Original Research
Surgery
1737
1506
Comparing long-term prognosis following different surgical methods in patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity: a retrospective cohort study in China
Li Lun 1230guo19880101@163.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8343-065X
Pang Jian 130pangjian@csu.edu.cn

Yan Yiqing 132204150119@csu.edu.cn

Zhang Qi 2qizhang1018@163.com

Zheng Shuyue 22235894552@qq.com

Chen Ming 22470043910@qq.com

Yi Wenjun 13yiwenjun@csu.edu.cn

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-0505
Wu Jiong 24*wujiong1122@vip.sina.com

1 Department of General Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
2 Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
3 Clinical Research Center for Breast Disease in Hunan Province, Changsha, China
4 Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Shanghai, China
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

ProfessorJiongWu; wujiong1122@vip.sina.com
ProfessorWenjunYi; yiwenjun@csu.edu.cn
LL and JP contributed equally.

2024
30 8 2024
14 8 e07881614 8 2023
07 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objective

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) includes breast-conserving surgery (BCS) combined with radiation therapy (RT). RT plays a crucial role in improving the prognosis of patients who undergo BCS. However, obesity is a potential risk factor for resistance to radiation. The aim of this study was to evaluate any difference in the long-term prognosis of patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity treated with BCT or total mastectomy (TM).

Design, setting and participants

This was a retrospective cohort study involving 1125 patients diagnosed with early stage breast cancer and obesity at the Shanghai Cancer Center of Fudan University from 2013 to 2016.

Outcome measures

Obesity in the Chinese population was defined as a body mass index ≥28 kg/m2. Surgical options included BCT and TM. The primary survival outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to control for the impact of confounding factors on prognosis.

Results

The median follow-up times in the BCT group and TM group without postoperative RT were 51.1 months (IQR of 40.6–68.1 months) and 61.8 months (IQR of 46.5–76.7 months), respectively. After IPTW, the baseline data were balanced. Compared with those in the TM cohort, patients in the whole IPTW cohort in the BCT cohort had worse DFS (HR 4.280, 95% CI 2.180 to 8.400; p<0.001), RFS (HR 4.380, 95% CI 2.370 to 8.120; p<0.001) and OS (HR 3.590, 95% CI 1.620 to 7.950; p=0.002).

Conclusion

In patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity, TM is associated with better survival outcomes than BCT.

Breast tumours
Breast surgery
Retrospective Studies
Obesity
The Academic Leaders of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission 18XD1401300 The Youth Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 82002797
==== Body
pmcStrengths and limitations of this study

This was a large cohort study on the surgical approach and survival duration of patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity.

This study was based on a retrospective cohort study of Chinese patients.

It is necessary to further investigate the robustness and generalisability of the findings by conducting prospective studies and including other populations.

Introduction

In recent years, the global prevalence of obesity has rapidly increased, leading to a global epidemic.1 Over the past three decades, the number of individuals with obesity worldwide has more than doubled, with an estimated 1.9 billion overweight or obese adults.2 3 Obesity is among the top five causes of global mortality and accounts for 5% of all deaths.4 Furthermore, it is recognised as a risk factor for various malignancies, including breast cancer.5 Obesity, as measured by body mass index (BMI), is associated with poorer disease-specific survival, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer.69 It increases the risk of local or regional breast cancer recurrence and may influence prognosis through its effects on systemic and local therapy. In patients with obesity, systemic treatment can improve local control of breast cancer, whereas ineffective systemic treatment may increase the risk of local recurrence.10 The detrimental effects of obesity on local control may lead to worse breast cancer-specific survival and/or DFS, as improved local control after radiation therapy (RT) has been shown to increase breast cancer-specific survival.10

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), consisting of breast tumour excision and local RT, is employed for invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Previous studies have shown no difference in long-term prognosis between BCT and total mastectomy (TM).11 12 Additionally, RT reduces the long-term risk of local recurrence.13 Indeed, RT has long been used to treat various malignancies, including breast cancer, and has been shown to significantly improve patient survival.14 However, resistance to RT, which is characterised by the absence of a response of some cancer cells to radiation, remains a major challenge.14 Obesity is considered a risk factor for radiation resistance and metastasis, and overall poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer.1517 If women receiving whole-breast RT have two or more breast cancer risk factors, including obesity, the likelihood of developing regional recurrence increases by 12.6% after 5 years.18 Obesity-induced radiation resistance may arise through mechanisms involving DNA repair and adipose-derived stem cells.11 19

Therefore, RT plays a critical role in breast-conserving surgery (BCS), with obesity being a risk factor for radiation resistance. The choice between BCT and TM in patients with obesity and early stage breast cancer still needs further clarification. Accordingly, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 1125 patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity who received treatment at the Shanghai Cancer Center of Fudan University from 2013 to 2016 to compare long-term prognoses following different surgical methods.

Methods

Data sources and study design

In this study, which was conducted at the Shanghai Cancer Center of Fudan University, a total of 18 700 patients were recruited between 2013 and 2016. The patient population had a BMI ranging from 12.9 kg/m2 to 39.13 kg/m2. Of the entire cohort, 1125 patients were early stage breast cancer with obesity, accounting for 6% of the overall population. To be included in this study, the patients met specific inclusion criteria, including primary breast cancer without metastasis, clinical stage T1–2N0M0, and no prior neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy, RT, or endocrine therapy. Furthermore, they did not have serious complications arising from conditions such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus or other underlying diseases.

All patients underwent diagnostic mammography and ultrasonography to identify any additional calcifications or masses. To be eligible for BCS, the surgical margins had to be negative. In cases in which positive margins were observed, wider resection ensured that the distance between the margin and the lesion was ≥5 mm. Patients eligible for BCS had singular or limited localised lesions that could be completely excised according to predetermined criteria. In addition, all patients who underwent BCS expressed a strong desire to preserve their breasts and agreed to postoperative RT. Patients with multicentric lesions, nipple involvement (such as Paget’s disease of the nipple), active connective tissue disease with poor radiotherapy tolerance, or unwillingness to receive RT for personal or economic reasons are typically recommended to undergo TM.

Laboratory data

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on tumour samples using an IHC staining module that specifically targeted oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). The IHC results were evaluated by a breast pathologist and further reviewed by senior experts. Clinical and pathological staging was performed according to the guidelines outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, eighth edition.20 HER2 positivity was determined based on IHC or fluorescence in situ hybridisation positivity. oestrogen receptor and PR were considered positive when expressed in 1% or more of the cells of a section; Ki67 was classified as high if 14% or more of the cells of a section stained positive.

Ethics and consent

This research complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided informed consent when the database was constructed.

Definition of patients with obesity

According to the WHO, BMI for adults is 18.5 kg/m2<BMI≤24.9 kg/m2 for normal weight, 25 kg/m2≤BMI≤29.9 kg/m2 for overweight, and≥30 kg/m2 for obese. The standard was based on data from European and American populations.21 Due to the differences in skeletal, height and muscle development between Asians and Europeans and Americans, reference standards for overweight and obesity boundary values suitable for the Chinese population have been proposed as follows: 18.5 kg/m2≤BMI<24 kg/m2 for normal weight, 24 kg/m2≤BMI<28 kg/m2 for overweight, and a BMI≥28 kg/m2 for obese. In this study, with reference to the Chinese BMI obese population standard, BMI≥28 kg/m2 was defined as obese.22

Study endpoints

OS, DFS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were the endpoints of this study. OS was defined as the time from the end of the diagnosis process to death from any cause. RFS was defined as the time from the end of the diagnosis process to tumour recurrence or the development of a new primary breast tumour. Finally, DFS was defined as the time from end of the diagnosis process to the time of tumour recurrence, metastasis or death from any cause.

Data integration and statistical methods

Descriptive statistics or columns are used to summarise patient demographic and baseline characteristics. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics between groups were assessed using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test.

To account for selection bias and potential confounding factors between groups, a propensity model was constructed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach. The weight of each patient was determined based on the inverse probability of belonging to the TM group compared with the BCS group, aiming to achieve a balance in observed characteristics, such as menopausal status, tumour grade, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and PR status.

Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan‒Meier (KM) method, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival between groups. HRs with 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

The R programming language (V.4.1.3) was employed for data analysis and graphical plotting. A value of p<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance for all statistical analyses.

Patient and public involvement

None.

Results

Clinical baseline information of patients with obesity in the TM and BCS groups

The study flow chart of our investigation is presented in online supplemental figure 1. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical intervention they received: the TM group and the BCS group. In the TM group, 885 patients had a median BMI of 29.0 (IQR 28.0–30.0) kg/m2 and a median follow-up time of 61.1 (IQR 46.2–77.7) months. In the BCS group, 240 patients had a median BMI of 29.0 (IQR 28.0–30.3) kg/m2 and a median follow-up time of 50.7 (IQR 40.9–66.9) months. Among the patients who underwent TM treatment, 185 received RT. A total of 176 patients who underwent BCS completed postoperative RT. The specific indications for radiotherapy and the corresponding strategies were evaluated by a radiation oncologist for a more standardised approach. However, 35 patients refused RT due to external or uncontrollable factors, and no records were available for 34 patients.

Online supplemental table 1 displays the clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients with obesity before and after IPTW. Before IPTW, a greater percentage of premenopausal patients were in the BCS group (36.2% vs 29.5%, p=0.045), had a grade 1 tumour (54.6% vs 53.9%, p<0.001), had a pathological T1 stage (67.1% vs 52.8%, p<0.001), had a pathological N0 stage (82.1% vs 69.3%, p<0.001), and were PR positive (73.8% vs 66.9%, p=0.043) than in the TM group. After IPTW, menopausal status, tumour grade, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and PR status were balanced between the groups (all p>0.050) (online supplemental table 1).

Survival analyses of patients with obesity in the TM and BCS groups

In the TM group, there were 34 deaths (4.0%) and 36 cases of local recurrence or distant metastasis (4.2%). In the BCS group, 15 patients died (6.3%), and 21 patients experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis (8.8%). The 3-year, 5-year and 7-year DFS rates of the TM group were 98.3%, 95.5 and 91.7%, respectively, and 96.9%, 88.8% and 79.4% in the BCS group, respectively (figure 1A). The 3-year, 5-year and 7-year RFS rates in the TM group were 99.2%, 97.5% and 94.0%, respectively; in the BCS group, they were 97.8%, 91.3% and 81.7%, respectively (figure 1B). The 3-year, 5-year and 7-year OS rates of the TM group were 98.4%, 96.9% and 95.4%, respectively; they were 97.4%, 93.0% and 88.6% in the BCS group, respectively (figure 1C). Therefore, patients in the TM group had superior outcomes to those in the BCS group in terms of DFS, RFS and OS.

Figure 1 Kaplan‒Meier (KM) curves of (A) DFS, (B) RFS and (C) OS in patients with obesity who underwent different surgical approaches before and after IPTW. BCS, breast-conserving surgery; DFS, disease-free survival; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival; TM, total mastectomy.

After IPTW, the TM group still exhibited significantly better DFS, RFS and OS than did the BCS group (p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.009, respectively) (figure 1A–1C).

Factors affecting the prognosis of the population with obesity

After IPTW, the results of multivariate analysis showed that HER2 status (positive vs negative: HR 0.350, 95% CI 0.150 to 0.820, p=0.015) and surgical procedure (BCS vs TM: HR 3.390, 95% CI 2.090 to 5.520, p<0.001) were independent predictive factors for DFS (online supplemental table 2). As indicated in online supplemental table 3, HER2 status (positive vs negative: HR 0.270, 95% CI 0.120 to 0.590, p=0.001), adjuvant hormonal therapy (yes vs no: HR=0.290, 95% CI 0.180 to 0.490, p<0.001) and surgical procedure (BCS vs TM: HR=4.440, 95% CI 2.630 to 7.520, p<0.001) were independent predictive factors for RFS. Furthermore, as shown in online supplemental table 4, menopausal status (postmenopausal vs premenopausal: HR 4.400, 95% CI 1.730 to 11.200, p=0.002), pathological T stage (T2 vs T1: HR 3.090, 95% CI 1.520 to 6.270, p=0.002) and surgical procedure (BCS vs TM: HR 2.860, 95% CI 1.410 to 5.790, p=0.004) were independent predictive factors for OS.

Survival analyses of patients with obesity in the BCS group, BCS+RT group, and TM group without postoperative RT

To explore prognostic differences between patients with obesity treated with BCS or TM, we further performed survival prognostic analyses on three groups of 700 patients treated with TM without postoperative RT, 35 patients treated with BCS but not receiving RT due to external factors, and 176 treated with BCS and receiving postoperative RT. In the TM group, 700 patients had a median BMI of 29.0 (IQR 28.0–30.0) kg/m2 and a median follow-up time of 61.8 (IQR 46.5–76.7) months. In the BCS group, 35 patients had a median BMI of 29.0 (IQR 28.0–31.0) kg/m2 and a median follow-up time of 52.1 (IQR 45.1–61.9) months. In the BCS+RT group, 176 patients had a median BMI of 29.0 (IQR 28.0–30.0) kg/m2 and a median follow-up time of 51.1 (IQR 40.6–68.1) months.

Online supplemental table 5 lists the baseline characteristics of these patients. Compared with those in the TM group and the BCS group without postoperative RT, a greater percentage of patients in the BCS+RT group were under 60 years old, were premenopausal, had a tumour grade of 1 and received adjuvant chemotherapy.

In the TM group, there were 20 deaths (2.9%) and 21 cases of local recurrence or distant metastasis (3.0%). In the BCS group, three patients died (8.6%), and four experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis (11.4%). In the BCS+RT group, there were 11 deaths (6.3%) and 15 cases of local recurrence or distant metastasis (8.5%). Survival analysis demonstrated that the TM group had better 3-year, 5-year and 7-year DFS rates (98.7%, 96.3% and 93.0%, respectively) than the BCS without RT group (97.1%, 76.1%, 76.1%) and the BCS with RT group (96.4%, 92.0%, 79.7%) (figure 2A). Moreover, the TM group had higher 3-year, 5-year and 7-year RFS rates (99.4%, 98.2% and 94.8%, respectively) than the BCS without RT group (97.1%, 79.2%, 79.2%) and the BCS with RT group (97.6%, 94.0%, 81.4%) (figure 2B). Additionally, the 3-year, 5-year and 7-year OS rates were higher (98.7%, 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively) than those of the BCS without RT group (97.1%, 86.5%, 86.5%) and the BCS with RT group (97.0%, 93.9%, 88.2%) (figure 2C). These findings suggest that adding adjuvant RT in combination with BCS can improve DFS, RFS and OS. Furthermore, the prognosis of BCS patients with obesity, even after the addition of postoperative RT, remains lower than that of patients who undergo TM without postoperative RT.

Figure 2 Kaplan‒Meier (KM) curves of (A) DFS, (B) RFS and (C) OS in patients with obesity who underwent different surgical approaches BCS, breast-conserving surgery; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; RT, radiation therapy; RFS, relapse-free survival; TM, total mastectomy.

Survival analyses of patients with obesity in the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT

We performed subgroup analysis to further explore the value of BCS with RT versus TM for determining the prognosis of patients with obesity. Table 1 describes differences in baseline characteristics between the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT. Before IPTW, we observed that among patients undergoing BCS treatment, there were higher proportions of individuals younger than 60 years old, premenopausal status, tumour grade 1, pathological stage T1, ER−/PR−/HER2− subtype, and ER+ or PR+/HER2+ subtype compared with the TM group. However, the effect of these potential confounders was neutralised after IPTW (all p>0.05), suggesting that the groups were balanced in terms of these characteristics.

Table 1 Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients with obesity in the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT

Characteristic	N (%)					
TM (n=700)	BCS+RT (n=176)	P value	SMD	PS-weighted P value	SMD	
Age, years							
<60	399 (57.0)	126 (71.6)	<0.001	0.308	0.979	0.003	
≥60	301 (43.0)	50 (28.4)					
Menopausal status							
Premenopausal	199 (28.4)	70 (39.8)	0.004	0.241	0.809	0.022	
Postmenopausal	501 (71.6)	106 (60.2)					
Tumour grade							
1	382 (54.6)	99 (56.3)	<0.001	<0.001	0.988	0.013	
2–3	204 (29.1)	69 (39.2)					
Unknown	114 (16.3)	8 (4.5)					
Pathological T stage							
T1	381 (54.4)	117 (66.5)	0.004	0.248	0.670	0.045	
T2	319 (45.6)	59 (33.5)					
Pathological N stage							
N0	564 (80.6)	147 (83.5)	0.371	0.077	0.748	0.031	
N1	136 (19.4)	29 (16.5)					
Oestrogen receptor status							
Negative	168 (24.0)	42 (23.9)	0.970	0.003	0.259	0.103	
Positive	532 (76.0)	134 (76.1)					
PR status							
Negative	228 (32.6)	45 (25.6)	0.073	0.155	0.292	0.110	
Positive	472 (67.4)	131 (74.4)					
HER2 status							
Negative	553 (79.0)	146 (83.0)	0.243	0.101	0.324	0.095	
Positive	147 (21.0)	30 (17.0)					
Subtype							
ER−/PR−/HER2−	84 (12.0)	31 (17.7)	0.043	0.250	0.511	0.140	
ER+ or PR+/HER2−	469 (67.0)	115 (65.3)					
ER− and PR−/HER2+	74 (10.6)	9 (5.1)					
ER+ or PR+/HER2+	73 (10.4)	21 (11.9)					
Ki67(%)							
≤14	197 (28.1)	40 (22.7)	0.148	0.125	0.866	0.017	
>14	503 (71.9)	136 (77.3)					
Adjuvant hormonal therapy							
No	168 (24.0)	41 (23.3)	0.845	0.017	0.171	0.124	
Yes	532 (76.0)	135 (76.7)					
Adjuvant chemotherapy							
No	216 (30.9)	50 (28.4)	0.528	0.528	0.796	0.027	
Yes	484 (69.1)	126 (71.6)					
Adjuvant targeted therapy							
No	608 (86.9)	154 (87.5)	0.821	0.821	0.255	0.097	
Yes	92 (13.1)	22 (12.5)					
.BCS, breast-conserving surgery; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; N, lymphaden; PR, progesterone receptor; PS, Propensity ScoreRT, radiation therapy; SMD, standardised mean difference; T, tumour size; TM, total mastectomy

Survival analysis revealed that the 3-year, 5-year and 7-year DFS rates in the TM group were 98.7%, 96.3% and 93.0%, respectively, which were better than those in the BCS+RT group (96.4%, 92.0% and 79.7%, respectively) (figure 3A). The 3-year, 5-year and 7-year RFS rates in the TM group were also greater than those in the BCS+RT group (99.4%, 98.2% and 94.8%, respectively) (97.6%, 94.0%, 81.4%) (figure 3B). Furthermore, the 3-year, 5-year and 7-year OS rates in the TM group were 98.7%, 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively, which were superior to those in the BCS+RT group (97.0%, 93.9%, 88.2%) (figure 3C).

Figure 3 Kaplan‒Meier (KM) curves of (A) DFS, (B) RFS and (C) OS in the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT before and after IPTW. BCS, breast-conserving surgery; DFS, disease-free survival; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival; RT, radiation therapy; TM, total mastectomy.

Prognostic factors of patients with obesity in the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT

After IPTW, multivariate analysis revealed several key factors that predicted different outcomes.

For DFS, pathological T stage (T2 vs T1: HR 2.520, 95% CI 1.200 to 5.280, p=0.014), Ki67% (>14 vs ≤14: HR 3.420, 95% CI 1.270 to 9.250, p=0.015) and surgery (BCS with RT vs TM: HR 4.280, 95% CI 2.180 to 8.400, p<0.001) were identified as independent predictors (table 2).

Table 2 IPTW-adjusted univariate and multivariate analyses of the association between the DFS rate and clinical factors of patients with obesity in the BCS+RT group and TM group without postoperative RT

Factor	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis	
	HR	95% CI	P value	HR	95% CI	P value	
Age, years (≥60 vs <60)	2.540	1.130 to 5.740	0.025	0.980	0.940 to 1.020	0.405	
Menopausal status (postmenopausal vs premenopausal)	2.320	1.120 to 4.810	0.023	2.490	0.940 to 6.610	0.068	
Tumour grade (2–3 vs 1)	2.790	1.200 to 6.470	0.017	2.100	0.930 to 4.780	0.076	
Tumour grade (Unknown vs 1)	4.610	1.870 to 11.370	0.001	1.970	0.810 to 4.780	0.136	
Pathological T stage (T2 vs T1)	3.160	1.550 to 6.420	0.001	2.520	1.200 to 5.280	0.014	
Pathological N stage (N1 vs N0)	0.660	0.250 to 1.760	0.407				
Oestrogen receptor (positive vs negative)	0.910	0.440 to 1.900	0.805				
PR (positive vs negative)	0.670	0.260 to 1.700	0.394				
HER2 (positive vs negative)	0.440	0.210 to 0.910	0.027	0.520	0.250 to 1.100	0.086	
Ki67% (>14 vs ≤14)	3.240	1.240 to 8.450	0.016	3.420	1.270 to 9.250	0.015	
Adjuvant hormonal therapy (yes vs no)	0.830	0.400 to 1.720	0.610				
Adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs no)	1.280	0.330 to 4.990	0.724				
Adjuvant targeted therapy (yes vs no)	0.690	0.230 to 2.070	0.512				
Surgery (BCS+RT vs TM)	3.950	2.080 to 7.510	<0.001	4.280	2.180 to 8.400	<0.001	
BCS, breast-conserving surgery; DFSdisease-free survivalHER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weightingN, lymphaden; PR, progesterone receptor; RT, radiation therapy; T, tumour size; TM, total mastectomy

In addition, Ki67% (>14 vs ≤14: HR 2.960, 95% CI 1.010 to 8.730, p=0.049) and surgery type (BCS with RT vs TM: HR 4.380, 95% CI 2.370 to 8.120; p<0.001) were found to be independent factors for predicting RFS (online supplemental table 6).

Furthermore, menopausal status (postmenopausal vs premenopausal: HR 7.790, 95% CI 2.420 to 25.080, p=0.001), tumour grade (2–3 vs 1: HR 3.360, 95% CI 1.030 to 10.990, p=0.045), pathological T stage (T2 vs T1: HR 2.990, 95% CI 1.130 to 7.920, p=0.028), and surgery type (BCS with RT vs TM: HR 3.590, 95% CI 1.620 to 7.950, p=0.002) were independent predictors of OS (online supplemental table 7).

Prognostic factors in patients without obesity

We further selected the overweight population (24 kg/m2≤BMI<28 kg/m2) and the population with normal weight (18.5 kg/m2≤BMI<24 kg/m2) from the patients with early stage breast cancer for analysis, in order to investigate the relationships between surgical methods, clinical pathological factors and prognosis. The baseline data for the population with normal weight and the population with overweight can be found in online supplemental tables 8 and 9. After IPTW, the results of the multivariate analysis show that the surgical method is not an independent factor influencing DFS (online supplemental tables 10 and 11), RFS (online supplemental tables 12 and 13) or OS (online supplemental tables 14 and 15), regardless of whether it is in the population with normal weight or the overweight population.

Survival analyses of the BCS+RT group and TM group in the total population

We finally plotted KM curves for patients undergoing BCS+RT and TM in different BMI populations, as shown in figure 4. The results showed that patients with obesity who underwent BCS+RT treatment had the lowest prognostic outcomes, regardless of whether it was in terms of OS, DFS or RFS. In addition, ignoring the BMI factor, we further compared the survival benefits of BCS+RT treatment and TM treatment in the overall population. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the long-term survival benefits of patients between the two surgical methods (online supplemental figure 2).

Figure 4 Kaplan‒Meier (KM) curves of (A) DFS, (B) RFS and (C) OS in the BCS+RT group and TM group among patients with different BMI levels. BCS, breast-conserving surgery; BMI, body mass index; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival; RT, radiation therapy; TM, total mastectomy.

Discussion

Our study revealed that patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity who underwent TM achieved better DFS, RFS and OS than those who underwent BCS. Further analyses showed that BCS combined with RT was superior to BCS alone, but its prognosis was still inferior to that of TM. Furthermore, when comparing the prognostic differences between different surgical methods in the overall population, the results found no significant difference in long-term prognosis between TM and BCS plus RT if the distribution of BMI in the overall population is not considered. Additionally, when comparing the effects of different surgical methods on prognosis in the normal BMI and overweight populations, the results also found no significant prognostic difference between the different surgical approaches.

Current research concludes that there are no significant differences in long-term survival outcomes between the BCS+RT and TM treatment methods in early stage breast cancer. For instance, the results of two meta-analyses on the prognostic differences between the BCS+RT and TM treatment methods in early stage breast cancer showed no statistically significant differences in long-term prognostic outcomes such as OS, local recurrence rate and DFS rate between the BCS+RT and TM groups.23 24 This is consistent with our research conclusions in the overall population.

However, to date, there has been little research focusing on obese patients with breast cancer, especially the long-term prognostic differences between the BCS+RT and TM treatment methods in the Chinese population. Our study found that in obese patients with breast cancer in China, the prognosis of the BCS+RT group is worse than that of the TM group. Further subgroup analysis found that radiotherapy resistance may be the reason why the treatment outcomes for patients with obesity undergoing BCS surgery are worse than those undergoing TM.

Rapiti et al reported that BCS is associated with worse prognosis than TM in patients with breast cancer but that BCS+RT is associated with better prognosis than TM.25 Similar conclusions were reached by Guidolin et al, suggesting that adjuvant RT has a protective effect on recurrence and survival in patients with early stage breast cancer.26 These findings suggest that RT may be a key factor influencing the long-term prognosis of patients treated with both surgical modalities. Moreover, obesity itself is a definitive adverse prognostic factor for early stage breast cancer.2729 Numerous studies have shown that obesity often leads to resistance to chemotherapy, endocrine therapy and RT.3035 Additionally, the influence of obesity on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs is multifaceted and variable. First, obesity can directly or indirectly affect the pharmacokinetics of small molecules and complex drugs (such as antibodies and antibody–drug conjugates) and alter metabolism of drugs in the liver and their elimination through the kidneys, thereby changing drug exposure in the blood, tissues and particularly in tumours.36 Furthermore, obesity potentially impacts drug exposure by modifying the function and phenotype of the innate immune system.37 Previous studies have found that BMI is a significant factor affecting the pharmacokinetics of drugs such as doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, trastuzumab, tamoxifen and anastrozole.3842 As a result, the effects of obesity on pharmacokinetics might alter the efficacy and toxicity of anticancer drugs, making it a critical factor in determining prognosis. Although the causal mechanism by which obesity affects prognosis has yet to be determined, it is believed to be related to the biology of the disease or to poorer treatment outcomes in patients with obesity.30 While RT reduces the risk of recurrence after BCS for breast cancer, its potential protective effects may diminish in patients with obesity. RT resistance significantly increases the risk of local recurrence, thus affecting the long-term survival of patients. However, the specific mechanisms of RT resistance in breast cancer remain unclear. Sabol et al discovered that adipose-derived stem cells altered by obesity promote radiation resistance in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer through paracrine signalling.11 Su et al reported that ionising radiation induces DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and enhances Serpin Family E Member 1 (SERPINE1) expression in cancer cells in an Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated/Ataxia Telangiectasia and Rad3-Related (ATM/ATR)-dependent manner, which promotes nuclear localisation of SERPINE1 and facilitates DSB repair. The link between obesity and RT resistance in triple-negative breast cancer has been revealed, with SERPINE1 identified as a key factor mediating RT resistance in obesity-associated tumours.19

Therefore, the superior prognosis of patients who undergo TM compared with BCT is likely attributed to differences in RT resistance among patients with obesity. Considering the above conclusions, patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity who show RT resistance may benefit more from TM or breast reconstruction surgery. Nevertheless, clinical application of these findings requires validation through large-scale randomised experiments.

One of the strengths of this study is that we adopted measures to balance potential confounding factors. The baseline characteristics of patients in subgroups, such as age, pT stage, pN stage and PR status, were somewhat heterogeneous. Regardless, we confirmed the prognostic differences between different surgical methods using IPTW without compromising the sample size. This approach helps to reduce confounding bias or covariate imbalance.

Our study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study with a relatively small sample size and was conducted at a single centre. Second, our data lacked information on obesity-related complications such as diabetes and hypertension. We did not conduct subgroup analysis on additional dimensions, such as cholesterol level, which may provide a more refined definition of obesity. Patients with obesity often have comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension, which may influence treatment choices and prognoses. Additionally, patients with diabetes prefer TM to BCS, but diabetes itself does not seem to influence the choice of RT among patients who undergo BCS.43 Third, whether the impact of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of drugs will affect the conclusions of this study is still worth further exploration. Finally, this study used BMI standards for the Asian population to define obesity, which may limit the generalisability of the results. No similar studies have been performed in Asia, and further exploration through randomised experiments or retrospective analyses in other regions is needed.

Conclusion

In patients with early stage breast cancer and obesity, TM is associated with better survival outcomes than BCT.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078816 online supplemental file 1

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Review Process File
30 08 2024

Funding: This study was funded by the Academic Leaders of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (18XD1401300) and the Youth Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82002797), the Changsha Natural Science Fundation (kq2208336), the Hunan Provincial Natural Science Fundation (2023JJ40831; 2023JJ60441), and the Scientific ResearchLaunch Project for new employees of the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University (2022- 086).

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078816).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Data availability free text: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, JW, upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available since this could compromise the privacy of the research participants.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Ethics approval: This research was granted approval by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University (Shanghai, China; ID: 050432-4-1911D, 1905202–7), and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.
==== Refs
References

1 Liu F Tang X Mao B et al Ethanol Extract of Licorice Alleviates HFD-Induced Liver Fat Accumulation in Association with Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Intestinal Metabolites in Obesity Mice Nutrients 2022 14(19) 4180 10.3390/nu14194180 36235833
2 Hruby A Hu FB The Epidemiology of Obesity: A Big Picture Pharmacoeconomics 2015 33 673 89 10.1007/s40273-014-0243-x 25471927
3 Tremmel M Gerdtham UG Nilsson PM et al Economic burden of obesity: a systematic literature review Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017 14 435 10.3390/ijerph14040435 28422077
4 Tam G Yeung MPS A systematic review of the long-term effectiveness of work-based lifestyle interventions to tackle overweight and obesity Prev Med 2018 107 54 60 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.11.011 29155225
5 Lewin AA Storey P Moccaldi M et al Fatty acid composition in mammary adipose tissue measured by gradient-echo spectroscopic MRI and its association with breast cancers Eur J Radiol 2019 116 205 11 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.04.024 31153566
6 Jiralerspong S Goodwin PJ Obesity and breast cancer prognosis: evidence, challenges, and opportunities J Clin Oncol 2016 34 4203 16 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.4480 27903149
7 Patterson RE Marinac CR Natarajan L et al Recruitment strategies, design, and participant characteristics in a trial of weight-loss and metformin in breast cancer survivors Contemp Clin Trials 2016 47 64 71 10.1016/j.cct.2015.12.009 26706665
8 Guldberg TL Christensen S Zachariae R et al Prognostic factors in early breast cancer associated with body mass index, physical functioning, physical activity, and comorbidity: data from a nationwide Danish cohort Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017 162 159 67 10.1007/s10549-016-4099-y 28078491
9 Bergom C Kelly T Bedi M et al Association of locoregional control with high body mass index in women undergoing breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016 96 65 71 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.020 27511848
10 Buchholz TA Tucker SL Erwin J et al Impact of systemic treatment on local control for patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer treated with breast-conservation therapy J Clin Oncol 2001 19 2240 6 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.8.2240 11304777
11 Sabol RA Villela VA Denys A et al Obesity-altered adipose stem cells promote radiation resistance of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer through paracrine signaling Int J Mol Sci 2020 21 2722 10.3390/ijms21082722 32326381
12 Yu P Liu P Zou Y et al Breast-conserving therapy shows better prognosis in mucinous breast carcinoma compared with mastectomy: a SEER population-based study Cancer Med 2020 9 5381 91 10.1002/cam4.3202 32515157
13 Sjöström M Chang SL Fishbane N et al Clinicogenomic radiotherapy classifier predicting the need for intensified locoregional treatment after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2019 37 3340 9 10.1200/JCO.19.00761 31618132
14 Huang R Xiang J Zhou P Vitamin D, gut microbiota, and radiation-related resistance: a love-hate triangle J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2019 38 493 10.1186/s13046-019-1499-y 31843023
15 McCall NS Simone BA Mehta M et al Onco-metabolism: defining the prognostic significance of obesity and diabetes in women with brain metastases from breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018 172 221 30 10.1007/s10549-018-4880-1 30022328
16 Heng YJ Wang J Ahearn TU et al Molecular mechanisms linking high body mass index to breast cancer etiology in post-menopausal breast tumor and tumor-adjacent tissues Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019 173 667 77 10.1007/s10549-018-5034-1 30387004
17 Dibaba DT Ogunsina K Braithwaite D et al Metabolic syndrome and risk of breast cancer mortality by menopause, obesity, and subtype Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019 174 209 18 10.1007/s10549-018-5056-8 30465158
18 Kim SW Chun M Oh YT et al Risk factors for regional recurrence in node-negative breast cancer: implications of regional nodal irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017 99 E23 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.646
19 Su Y-H Wu Y-Z Ann DK et al Obesity promotes radioresistance through SERPINE1-mediated aggressiveness and DNA repair of triple-negative breast cancer Cell Death Dis 2023 14 53 10.1038/s41419-023-05576-8 36681663
20 Cserni G Chmielik E Cserni B et al The new TNM-based staging of breast cancer Virchows Arch 2018 472 697 703 10.1007/s00428-018-2301-9 29380126
21 Schetz M De Jong A Deane AM et al Obesity in the critically ill: a narrative review Intensive Care Med 2019 45 757 69 10.1007/s00134-019-05594-1 30888440
22 Mi Y-J Zhang B Wang H-J et al Prevalence and secular trends in obesity among chinese adults, 1991-2011 Am J Prev Med 2015 49 661 9 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.005 26275960
23 Chen Y Jiang L Gao B et al Survival and disease-free benefits with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy for early breast cancer: a meta-analysis Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016 157 517 25 10.1007/s10549-016-3830-z 27246814
24 Yang SH Yang KH Li YP et al Breast conservation therapy for stage I or stage II breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Ann Oncol 2008 19 1039 44 10.1093/annonc/mdm573 18187486
25 Rapiti E Fioretta G Vlastos G et al Breast-conserving surgery has equivalent effect as mastectomy on stage I breast cancer prognosis only when followed by radiotherapy Radiother Oncol 2003 69 277 84 10.1016/j.radonc.2003.09.003 14644487
26 Guidolin K Lock M Vogt K et al Recurrence and mortality after breast-conserving surgery without radiation Curr Oncol 2019 26 380 8 10.3747/co.26.5225 31896936
27 Trestini I Carbognin L Monteverdi S et al Clinical implication of changes in body composition and weight in patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancer Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018 129 54 66 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.06.011 30097238
28 Carroll J Protani M Walpole E et al Effect of obesity on toxicity in women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012 136 323 30 10.1007/s10549-012-2213-3 22918525
29 Saleh K Carton M Dieras V et al Impact of body mass index on overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer Breast 2021 55 16 24 10.1016/j.breast.2020.11.014 33307392
30 Tran TXM Moon SG Kim S et al Association of the interaction between mammographic breast density, body mass index, and menopausal status with breast cancer risk among Korean women JAMA Netw Open 2021 4 e2139161 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.39161 34940866
31 Choi Y Lee YH Park SK et al Association between obesity and local control of advanced rectal cancer after combined surgery and radiotherapy Radiat Oncol J 2016 34 113 20 10.3857/roj.2016.01725 27306771
32 Shastri AA Lombardo J Okere SC et al Personalized nutrition as a key contributor to improving radiation response in breast cancer Int J Mol Sci 2021 23 175 10.3390/ijms23010175 35008602
33 Koneru H Cyr R Feng LR et al The impact of obesity on patient reported outcomes following stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer Cureus 2016 8 e669 10.7759/cureus.669 27551649
34 Scarpa M Ruffolo C Erroi F et al Obesity is a risk factor for multifocal disease and recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery: a case-control study Anticancer Res 2014 34 5735 41 25275082
35 Zhao C Hu W Xu Y et al Current landscape: the mechanism and therapeutic impact of obesity for breast cancer Front Oncol 2021 11 10.3389/fonc.2021.704893
36 Zamboni WC Charlab R Burckart GJ et al Effect of obesity on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticancer agents J Clin Pharmacol 2023 63 Suppl 2 S85 102 10.1002/jcph.2326 37942904
37 Hendrikx JJMA Haanen JBAG Voest EE et al Fixed dosing of monoclonal antibodies in oncology Oncologist 2017 22 1212 21 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0167 28754722
38 Dilli Batcha JS Raju AP Matcha S et al Factors influencing pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients: a systematic review of population pharmacokinetic models Biology (Basel) 2022 12 51 10.3390/biology12010051 36671744
39 Ahmed JH Makonnen E Bisaso RK et al Population pharmacokinetic, pharmacogenetic, and pharmacodynamic analysis of cyclophosphamide in ethiopian breast cancer patients Front Pharmacol 2020 11 406 10.3389/fphar.2020.00406 32390827
40 Barpe DR Rosa DD Froehlich PE Pharmacokinetic evaluation of doxorubicin plasma levels in normal and overweight patients with breast cancer and simulation of dose adjustment by different indexes of body mass Eur J Pharm Sci 2010 41 458 63 10.1016/j.ejps.2010.07.015 20688160
41 González García J Gutiérrez Nicolás F Nazco Casariego GJ et al Influence of anthropometric characteristics in patients with her2-positive breast cancer on initial plasma concentrations of trastuzumab Ann Pharmacother 2017 51 976 80 10.1177/1060028017715727 28643558
42 Hubalek M Oberguggenberger A Beer B et al Does obesity interfere with anastrozole treatment? Positive association between body mass index and anastrozole plasma levels Clin Breast Cancer 2014 14 291 6 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.12.008 24468298
43 Lawrenson R Lao C Stanley J et al Impact of diabetes on surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023 199 305 14 10.1007/s10549-023-06915-1 36997750
