PDA

View Full Version : Leukemia risk for breast cancer survivors small but not trivial


Hopeful
10-10-2007, 06:34 AM
MedWire News: Breast cancer survivors face a small but significantly increased risk for secondary leukemia that persists for 25 years after initial diagnosis, reports a study.

It is becoming increasingly important to quantify the late adverse effects of cancer therapy, as more women are now surviving longer after breast cancer, explain Regan Howard (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA) and colleagues in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

In the present study, the researchers identified 376,825 women who were alive at least 1 year after treatment for primary breast cancer. The women were followed-up for a median of 8.9 years between 1943 and 2001, with 21,084 women surviving for 25 years or more.

In total, 687 women developed secondary leukemia - 33 more than would be expected in the general population, note the researchers.

Breast cancer survivors had a particularly increased risk for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and myeloid leukemia compared with the general population.

There was, however, an overall decrease in incidence of leukemia among breast cancer survivors from time periods before 1970 to time periods after 1985.

Specifically, the incidence of CML dropped markedly in this time period. The researchers note that CML is considered a carcinogenic consequence of ionizing radiation and speculate that this decrease is due to advances in radiation technology that permit more precise identification of target volumes, minimizing the dose received by surrounding tissues and bone marrow

On the other hand, there was a slight increase in incidence of ALL and AML, which the researchers say may be due to the use of topoisomerase II inhibiting chemotherapy, which has been linked to leukemia-causing chromosome rearrangements.

Howard et al call for further investigations to assess whether certain treatment modalities induce specific leukemia subtypes and to clarify patterns hinted at in the present study.

The researchers acknowledge that the benefits of systemic treatments for breast cancer outweigh the late adverse effects, although they caution that "health care providers should be aware that breast cancer survivors are at increased risk of leukemia for at least 25 years, with excesses observed for CML and ALL, as well as AML."



Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 105: 359-368

http://www.springerlink.com/content/dn4u7708185n1070/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/dn4u7708185n1070/)


Abstract
Purpose To quantify long-term temporal trends in the excess absolute risk (EAR) of secondary leukemia among breast cancer (BC) survivors, using multivariate analyses to evaluate the effects of subtype, age at BC diagnosis, attained age, and calendar year.

Patients and methods We identified 376,825 1-year survivors of BC within 4 nationwide, population-based cancer registries in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway (1943–2001). Estimates of EAR (per 100,000 person-years) were modeled using Poisson regression methods and cumulative risks calculated using a competing risk model.

Results A total of 687 non-chronic lymphocytic leukemias (EAR = 9.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.5–10.7) was reported. Significantly elevated risks were observed for the first time for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) (EAR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.3–2.9) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (EAR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.2–1.1), in addition to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (EAR = 5.00; 95% CI = 3.9–6.2). Excesses of CML, ALL, AML and all leukemias combined persisted over 25 years after BC diagnosis. For all leukemias, EAR decreased with increasing calendar year (P = 0.04) of BC diagnosis. Risk for all leukemia and AML by calendar year of BC diagnosis depended on age at diagnosis. For women diagnosed with BC after 1985, the 10-year cumulative risk of leukemia for those diagnosed before and after age 50 was small, 0.10% and 0.14%, respectively.

Conclusions Although secondary leukemia is a rare event, BC survivors experience statistically significant excesses for at least 25 years after diagnosis, including CML and ALL. Decreasing leukemia risks in recent calendar years likely reflect changes in treatment.

Hopeful

madubois63
10-10-2007, 07:27 AM
So why is it that I can't win the freaking lottery??????????

For some time now, I have been reading your posts about low platelets, growth shots and wanting to continue certain treatment plans long after you should stop. I cringe. I also don't answer everything for fear of scaring people, but I guess that's what I have to do. I have friends that don't want to stop taking anti-hormonal drugs even after the recommended 5 year treatment plan. I am not saying any of these things are bad. They saved my life and yet they almost killed me too. When is too much too much??? Cold Spring Harbor Labs (on Long Island) is working on a "DNA biopsy" that will be able to tell if you will need surgery, radiation or chemo for your specific cancer. It will be a great thing when ready, but...I personally asked one of the scientists working on the program (at the BC Victory Day at Mather Memorial Hospital 2 weeks ago) if the "biopsy" will be able to tell HOW MUCH treatment to give. This seemed to blow her mind. These scientists never thought of this question before?? In front of 1,000 people, she admitted she did not have an answer for me. I hope I changed the future. I hope she went back to her lab and is now brainstorming a solution. The chemo's that were chosen for me worked, but we just didn't know when to stop because my situation was different than anyone else's. That one more treatment literally knocked me off my feet (even though I was sitting). I crashed/passed out and needed immediate med's to get things under control. It was a double dose of carbo and taxotere. I'll never forget it, and I know that is what screwed up my DNA. My counts bottomed out, the bruises started and so did the nose bleeds. I am one of the rare people to get leukemia because of BC treatments, but the number is growing. I am also one of the very few people that survive the "cure" for secondary AML brought on by chemo. I posted a lot through it all, but I did not tell you all the really bad stuff. I do not recommend having to do what I did. I don't want anyone else to have to do it. I really don't know how I did it physically or emotionally. When I first relapsed in 2004, I inquired about a bone marrow transplant. I did not qualify. I contacted other countries. Somehow, I knew then it would be my cure, but I was shot down. I did the plan offered and continued to research a lot. I even asked my onc if I could get leukemia from all this stuff. I was told that it was so rare, I shouldn't even think about it....Now, it is all I can think about. What is my point?? Please consider every thing you do. Yes, I needed to do the surgeries, the radiation, the shots, and the chemo to survive but it only made my fight longer, harder and brought me into a different cancer world. Stay informed, stay one step ahead of this crappy disease...

Love, Maryann

PinkGirl
10-10-2007, 07:45 AM
Does your NED status refer to BOTH breast cancer and leukemia? When we have mets, they are breast cancer cells in another organ, is the leukemia the same, or is it "regular" leukemia? I'm not making light of this, I just don't know how else to ask the question. Did you have totally different treatments for the BC and the leukemia? Do you get tested and screened for both kinds of cancer now? Am I asking too many questions????:)

madubois63
10-10-2007, 08:48 AM
Your not asking too many questions!! First off, I am NED for BOTH diseases. I don't know if I use the proper terms for the leukemia (there aren't many people to ask). Some people may say I am cured. According to what I've read, after my DNA and blood type switched over (I was a B+ and my donor is an A+. I am now A+ too, and my DNA no longer exists. Under a microscope, I am her), the bone marrow transplant was considered a complete success. If that means "cure," I use it very lightly because I know better being from the BC world and having my luck. Leukemia is cancer of the blood. Blood flows through everything, so I guess it was everywhere...The type and stage of leukemia (mine being Acute Myeloid Leukemia M2) has to do with the genetic changes. My cells were genetically mutated because of the chemo's for BC. The treatment for leukemia is very different than the BC stuff. This stuff kills everything in sight. I had to have platelet and blood transfusions almost every other day for a bit. Anyway, It is given in steps. First step being "Induction." I received cytarabine (ara-C) and daunorubicin... This was given over 7 days in the hospital. I was in the transplant ward/isolation. The chemo completely wipes out your immune system/blood counts. I spent another 3 weeks in the same room (isolated) building my counts back up. The chemo is supposed to kill the leukemia. After a bone marrow biopsy, I was told there was no sign of the leukemia. If there was, I would have needed more "Induction" therapy. I was able to go home for a month, but my house had to be CLEAN (filters, walls, rugs, dog, curtains...), no new plants or animals, I could not go out shopping or in crowds (a matinee movie was okay), no raw foods unless pealed and washed...After a month, I went back in to the hospital for round 2. This consisted of 5 days of continuous chemo (can't remember what it was called). This was to keep the leukemia away. After a few more weeks of isolation, I was able to go home again. Meantime, the search and find of my donor was underway. I had a month home to get ready. I flew to Buffalo (8 hours away from home) for the transplant (my local hospital does not do unrelated transplants yet - you have to earn the right and they are fairly new at it - my doctor is not though). I spent 2 months in buffalo for the transplant - most of that in isolation. I came back in to my leukemia doctors care here (I now see him once a week), and I also see my BC oncologist for staging every 2 months. There was fear that the transplant might kick start the BC again. Don't ask me how or why, I just know I made my mind up it wasn't going to happen. So far so good...

PinkGirl
10-10-2007, 10:01 AM
That's a lot of sh*t you had to go through - definitely not "trivial". Thanks for answering my questions.

tousled1
10-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Mary Ann,

I admire your strength. My son had leukemia (AML) at the age of 36 and I know what he went through as I was with him through it all. As hard as going through chemo for breast cancer is you can't even begin to compare it to what you go through for leukemia. I actually got tired of keeping track of how many units of blood and platlets my son received. Mary Ann, you had a rough battle and you are an inspiration.

AlaskaAngel
10-11-2007, 02:41 PM
Maryann,

Your straightforward post is so important. Thank you for expressing it no matter how difficult it is. Your choices were not easy or simple.

I would like to say something in regard to those with early stage bc who are not triple negative or not HR-negative. The best choice truly may be significantly different now than it was when I was diagnosed. I wish that I would have been more willing to challenge the treatment options recommended to me, and lead others to better treatment. There was no proven Herceptin then. Arimidex was new and was the only AI available and didn’t have much history.

If I, as a stage I considered originally to have a “very good prognosis”, have already had at just 5 years out:

2 bone scans (each considered to have 10-20 times as much rads as a mammogram)
3 CTs (again, each considered to have 10-20 times as much rads as a mammogram)
Plus a few dozen mammograms and chest x-rays
IMRT radiation for 5 weeks plus boost
Cytoxan (with higher risk for development of leukemia with added radiation)
Adriamycin (with higher risk for development of leukemia down the road)
5-FU
Tamoxifen

then I have taken on a lot of added risk.

The one thing I would like others with early stage diagnosis to consider is that chemo and rads are cumulative, and that certain early stage patients in particular may actually "last longer" and benefit more in the long run by limiting as much of these diagnostics and therapies as possible. Newer techniques and therapies are likely to be developed before most early stage would ever develop recurrence, but you can never decrease the amount of chemo or rads you have had.

Again, please consider all the ways in which recommended therapy have changed just in the 5 years since I was diagnosed.

AlaskaAngel

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=28989 (http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=28989)

Lolly
10-11-2007, 03:03 PM
This is such an important topic, I really appreciate all the insights given. Since I recurred (after ACT plus rads), my onc has always been careful about the amount of chemo (less is more) and the number of scans (only when symptoms present, and then only if new and different, except for my annual brain mri which he orders because of my "headaches") for the reasons given above.

Lolly
10-11-2007, 03:21 PM
P.S. I in no way think that I'm somehow immune to the risk of a secondary cancer because my onc has been careful. I think, as Maryanne and AA point out, it's just one of the risks we all have now, even in the best case scenario of careful treatment etc., but newer therapies may indeed lessen this risk.