Medicina (Aug 2023)

Prognostic Tools for Older Women with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

  • Sydney M. Record,
  • Tori Chanenchuk,
  • Kendra M. Parrish,
  • Samantha J. Kaplan,
  • Gretchen Kimmick,
  • Jennifer K. Plichta

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59091576
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 59, no. 9
p. 1576

Abstract

Read online

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and older patients comprise an increasing proportion of patients with this disease. The older breast cancer population is heterogenous with unique factors affecting clinical decision making. While many models have been developed and tested for breast cancer patients of all ages, tools specifically developed for older patients with breast cancer have not been recently reviewed. We systematically reviewed prognostic models developed and/or validated for older patients with breast cancer. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in 3 electronic databases. We identified original studies that were published prior to 8 November 2022 and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict response to treatment, recurrence, and/or mortality in older patients with breast cancer. The PROBAST was used to assess the ROB and applicability of each included tool. Results: We screened titles and abstracts of 7316 records. This generated 126 studies for a full text review. We identified 17 eligible articles, all of which presented tool development. The models were developed between 1996 and 2022, mostly using national registry data. The prognostic models were mainly developed in the United States (n = 7; 41%). For the derivation cohorts, the median sample size was 213 (interquartile range, 81–845). For the 17 included modes, the median number of predictive factors was 7 (4.5–10). Conclusions: There have been several studies focused on developing prognostic tools specifically for older patients with breast cancer, and the predictions made by these tools vary widely to include response to treatment, recurrence, and mortality. While external validation was rare, we found that it was typically concordant with interval validation results. Studies that were not validated or only internally validated still require external validation. However, most of the models presented in this review represent promising tools for clinical application in the care of older patients with breast cancer.

Keywords