Literature DB >> 10793111

Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

F D Gilliland1, N Joste, P M Stauber, W C Hunt, R Rosenberg, G Redlich, C R Key.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancer is defined as a cancer that is detected within 12 months after a negative mammogram. The failure of mammography to detect breast cancer depends on testing procedures, radiologist interpretation, patient characteristics, and tumor properties. Although errors by radiologists explain some interval cancers, another explanation is that the tumor is rapidly growing and was too small to be detected on the last mammogram. To determine whether markers of tumor growth rate are associated with risk of an interval cancer, we conducted a population-based study with the use of data collected statewide by the New Mexico Mammography Project.
METHODS: Among women who received a mammographic examination from 1991 throughout 1993, we ascertained records of all patients with breast cancer diagnosed within 12 months of a negative screening mammographic examination (interval cancers) and corresponding tumor samples, when available. We selected an age- and ethnicity-matched comparison group of control patients with screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed during the same period. In tumor samples, p53, bcl-2, and Ki-67 were examined immunologically and the apoptotic index was assessed histologically. We used logistic regression to determine whether interval cancers were associated with selected demographic, radiologic, and biologic characteristics.
RESULTS: It is more likely that mammography did not detect tumors with a high proportion of proliferating cells (>20%) than tumors with a low proportion of proliferating cells (<5%) (odds ratio [OR] = 4.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-14.65). The OR for mammographic failure was 2.96 (95% CI = 1.07-8.20) among cancers that expressed p53 compared with cancers that did not. Interval cancers also had fewer apoptotic cells. Approximately 75% of interval cancers appear to have tumors with 5% proliferating cells or more. Younger women had a higher proportion of rapidly proliferating and aggressive cancers.
CONCLUSION: Rapidly growing and aggressive tumors account for a substantial proportion of mammographic failure to detect breast cancer, especially among younger women, who have a high proportion of aggressive cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10793111     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.9.743

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  40 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

Review 2.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Method of detection of breast cancer in low-income women.

Authors:  Amardeep Thind; Allison Diamant; Lalima Hoq; Rose Maly
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Differences in Breast Cancer Characteristics by Mammography Screening Participation or Non-Participation.

Authors:  Bettina Braun; Laura Khil; Joke Tio; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Andrea Fuhs; Oliver Heidinger; Hans-Werner Hense
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 5.594

9.  Biology and Etiology of Young-Onset Breast Cancers among Premenopausal African American Women: Results from the AMBER Consortium.

Authors:  Lynn Chollet-Hinton; Andrew F Olshan; Hazel B Nichols; Carey K Anders; Jennifer L Lund; Emma H Allott; Traci N Bethea; Chi-Chen Hong; Stephanie M Cohen; Thaer Khoury; Gary R Zirpoli; Virginia F Borges; Lynn A Rosenberg; Elisa V Bandera; Christine B Ambrosone; Julie R Palmer; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Tumor characteristics in screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers.

Authors:  István Pálka; Gyöngyi Kelemen; Katalin Ormándi; György Lázár; Tibor Nyári; László Thurzó; Zsuzsanna Kahán
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 3.201

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.