Literature DB >> 10767831

A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening programme.

W K Cowan1, B Angus, J C Gray, L G Lunt, S R al-Tamimi.   

Abstract

AIM: To define the biological nature and malignant potential of interval cancers presenting to a breast unit within the NHS breast screening programme.
METHODS: 112 interval cancers were compared with matched, screen detected and symptomatic cancers in terms of their radiographic, histopathological, and immunohistochemical features.
RESULTS: Interval cancers, strictly defined, showed no characteristic radiographic pattern. In terms of size, vascular invasion, lymph node status, and prognosis they were intermediate between screen detected and symptomatic cancers. Within the interval cancers there was an excess of grade 1 and grade 3 tumours, and lesions with a high Ki67 index but immunohistochemistry otherwise failed to discriminate between the three groups. Inclusion of data from false negative "interval cancers" did not significantly alter the results.
CONCLUSIONS: Interval cancers are more aggressive than screen detected cancers but in general less aggressive than symptomatic cancers. However, within a heterogeneous group, occasional interval cancers are exceptionally malignant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10767831      PMCID: PMC1763287          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.53.2.140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  35 in total

1.  Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases.

Authors:  C L Carter; C Allen; D E Henson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1989-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  An immunochemical analysis of mdm2 expression in human breast cancer and the identification of a growth-regulated cross-reacting species p170.

Authors:  M O'Neill; S J Campbell; V Save; A M Thompson; P A Hall
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 7.996

3.  Assessment of malignancy potential in so-called interval mammary carcinomas.

Authors:  A von Rosen; K Erhardt; L Hellström; A Somell; G Auer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Expression of c-erbB-2 oncoprotein: a prognostic indicator in human breast cancer.

Authors:  C Wright; B Angus; S Nicholson; J R Sainsbury; J Cairns; W J Gullick; P Kelly; A L Harris; C H Horne
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1989-04-15       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias.

Authors:  R DeGroote; B F Rush; J Milazzo; M J Warden; J M Rocko
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial.

Authors:  I Andersson; K Aspegren; L Janzon; T Landberg; K Lindholm; F Linell; O Ljungberg; J Ranstam; B Sigfússon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

7.  Survival in breast cancer diagnosed between mammographic screening examinations.

Authors:  L H Holmberg; L Tabar; H O Adami; R Bergström
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-07-05       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  The biology and natural history of breast cancer from the screening perspective.

Authors:  L Holmberg; J Pontén; H O Adami
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.

Authors:  L Tabár; G Faberberg; N E Day; L Holmberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  A prognostic index in primary breast cancer.

Authors:  J L Haybittle; R W Blamey; C W Elston; J Johnson; P J Doyle; F C Campbell; R I Nicholson; K Griffiths
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

1.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Growing concern following compression mammography.

Authors:  Johannes Pieter van Netten; Stephen Hoption Cann; Ian Thornton; Rory Finegan
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-08-31

3.  The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Tissue Bank at the IU Simon Cancer Center: a unique resource for defining the "molecular histology" of the breast.

Authors:  Mark E Sherman; Jonine D Figueroa; Jill E Henry; Susan E Clare; Connie Rufenbarger; Anna Maria Storniolo
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2012-02-17

4.  Discovery of breast cancers within 1 year of a normal screening mammogram: how are they found?

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Elizabeth Steiner; Martha E Goodrich; Allen J Dietrich; Claudia J Kasales; Julia E Weiss; Todd MacKenzie
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection?

Authors:  L Provencher; J C Hogue; C Desbiens; B Poirier; E Poirier; D Boudreau; M Joyal; C Diorio; N Duchesne; J Chiquette
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial).

Authors:  Cheryl Lin; Meredith Becker Buxton; Dan Moore; Helen Krontiras; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta Liu; Olufunmilayo Olapade; Christina Yau; Donald Berry; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection among screened women in the Cancer Prevention Study-II.

Authors:  Mia M Gaudet; Emily Deubler; W Ryan Diver; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Alpa V Patel; Ted Gansler; Mark E Sherman; Susan M Gapstur
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

Authors:  Jan T Lowery; Tim Byers; John Kittelson; John E Hokanson; Judy Mouchawar; John Lewin; Dan Merrick; Lisa Hines; Meenakshi Singh
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991-2001.

Authors:  T J Anderson; C Davis; F E Alexander; H M Dobson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review.

Authors:  P J van Diest; E van der Wall; J P A Baak
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.