Literature DB >> 12888371

The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease.

S W Duffy1, L Tabar, B Vitak, N E Day, R A Smith, H H T Chen, M F A Yen.   

Abstract

We aimed to quantify the benefits of detecting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and of downwards stage-shifting within invasive tumours in mammographic screening. Using data from the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening, we examined the 20-year death rates from invasive tumours of stage II or worse, invasive tumours of stage I and DCIS. We then used these rates and their respective incidences in invited (active study population, ASP) and control (passive study population, PSP) arms of the trial, to estimate the numbers of deaths avoided by downward stage-shifting the larger stage II or worse tumours to stage I and the stage I cancers to DCIS. We also studied the association between the mortality reduction achieved and the proportion of DCIS cases detected in the randomised trials of breast cancer screening. In the Swedish Two County Trial, 141 breast cancer deaths were avoided in the ASP compared with the PSP at approximately 20 years of follow-up. Of these, 65% (91/141) were avoided as a result of stage-shifting from invasive stage II or worse to invasive stage I, and 5% (7/141) as a result of stage-shifting from invasive stage I to DCIS. If we assumed that 10% of stage II or worse tumours avoided were shifted not to stage I, but to DCIS, the estimated number of deaths prevented by shifting from invasive disease to in situ was 17, which is 12% of all deaths prevented. When the results of all the randomised trials of breast cancer screening were reviewed, there was no clear association between the percentage of DCIS cases diagnosed and the observed mortality reduction. We conclude that compared with downward stage-shifting of invasive tumours, detection of DCIS plays a small part in saving lives from breast cancer. Treatment decisions in DCIS, as in invasive carcinoma, should take full account of histopathological, clinical and radiological attributes of the tumour.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12888371     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00259-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  17 in total

1.  Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  [Diagnostics of microcalcifications from minimally invasive biopsies in mammography screening: results from the prevalence phase].

Authors:  D Hungermann; S Weigel; E Korsching; W Heindel; W Böcker; T Decker
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn; Jung Hee Shin; Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Carl D'Orsi; Joann G Elmore; William E Barlow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Detection of in situ mammary cancer in a transgenic mouse model: in vitro and in vivo MRI studies demonstrate histopathologic correlation.

Authors:  S A Jansen; S D Conzen; X Fan; T Krausz; M Zamora; S Foxley; J River; G M Newstead; G S Karczmar
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition.

Authors:  Sanaz A Jansen; Akiko Shimauchi; Lindsay Zak; Xiaobing Fan; Abbie M Wood; Gregory S Karczmar; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Advanced breast cancer incidence following population-based mammographic screening.

Authors:  P Autier; M Boniol; R Middleton; J F Doré; C Héry; T Zheng; A Gavin
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Imputation of missing values of tumour stage in population-based cancer registration.

Authors:  Nora Eisemann; Annika Waldmann; Alexander Katalinic
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the natural history of in situ mammary neoplasia in transgenic mice: a pilot study.

Authors:  Sanaz A Jansen; Suzanne D Conzen; Xiaobing Fan; Erica J Markiewicz; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.