Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-CHM-110 standard review
Leukaemia-type cancers after breast cancer treatment
Risk of marrow neoplasms after adjuvant breast cancer therapy: the national comprehensive cancer network experience.
Overview
Wolff AC et al.. J Clin Oncol 2015 · PMID 25534386 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.6119
About 5 in 1000 treated women developed a marrow cancer within 10 years.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure risk of marrow cancers after treatment
- How was the study done?
Cohort of 20,063 patients
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US academic centres
- What was actually found?
Low but real risk that keeps rising after 5 years
- How large was the observed effect?
0.24% at 5 y, 0.48% at 10 y
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Rare, but a reason for follow-up
- What are the study's limitations?
Few events
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports existence of second cancers; shows they are rare
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show harm outweighs benefit
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Wolff AC et al.
- Journal
- J Clin Oncol
- Year
- 2015
- Identifier
- PMID 25534386 DOI 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.6119
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 (PublicationType and CommentsCorrections checked); Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
ErratumIn J Clin Oncol 2015;33(10):1227 (PubMed); Crossref correction 10.1200/jco.2015.61.6656; no retraction
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
NCI grants; COI not stated in abstract.
2. Research question
What is the risk of marrow neoplasms (MDS/AML and others) after adjuvant breast cancer therapy?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Retrospective multicentre cohort (NCCN database)
- Population
Patients with stage I-III breast cancer at US academic centres
- Country
USA
- Period
Treated 1998-2007; median follow-up 5.1 years
- Sample size
20,063
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Stage I-III breast cancer
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy
- Comparator
Surgery only
- Endpoints
Marrow neoplasms (myeloid and lymphoid)
- Statistical methods
Cumulative incidence with competing risks; HRs; comparison with SEER
5. Actual results
- Results
50 patients developed marrow neoplasm (42 myeloid, 8 lymphoid). HR 6.8 (1.3-36.1) after surgery plus chemotherapy and 7.6 (1.6-35.8) after all modalities vs no chemotherapy. Rates per 1000 person-years: 0.16 (surgery), 0.43 (plus radiation), 0.46 (plus chemotherapy), 0.54 (all three). Cumulative incidence 0.24% at 5 years and 0.48% at 10 years.
- Absolute risks
Cumulative incidence 0.48% at 10 years
- Authors' conclusion
Marrow-neoplasm risk after radiation and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was low but higher than previously described and continued beyond 5 years; individual risk must be balanced against the absolute survival benefit of chemotherapy.
6. Strengths
- Large cohort, competing-risk methods
- Absolute rates reported
7. Weaknesses
- Observational; few events (wide CIs)
- Academic centres only
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Observational cohort; confounding by indication possible but direction of harm consistent with biology.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
HRs have very wide CIs (few events in surgery-only group); absolute rates are the informative measure (stats/C-CHM-03.py).
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Confirms therapy-related marrow cancers and quantifies them as rare (about 0.5% at 10 years).
11. Independent contrary findings
EBCTCG 2023 (I-CHM-101) gives a similar order of magnitude (AML about 1 per 700).
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable to European adjuvant practice.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Real but rare harm, quantified.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Risk beyond 10 years.