Literature DB >> 15339900

Risk for distant recurrence of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods.

Heikki Joensuu1, Tiina Lehtimäki, Kaija Holli, Liisa Elomaa, Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, Vesa Kataja, Ahti Anttila, Mikael Lundin, Jorma Isola, Johan Lundin.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Selection of systemic adjuvant therapies for women diagnosed as having breast cancer is based on risk estimations for cancer recurrence. In such estimations, tumors detected by mammography screening are considered to be associated with a similar risk of recurrence as tumors of similar size found by other methods.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of recurrence and survival among women with cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening compared with other methods (outside of screening). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective study comparing clinical, histopathological, and biological features of cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening compared with tumors detected outside of screening. Women diagnosed as having breast cancer in 1991 or 1992 were identified from the Finnish Cancer Registry (n = 2842). The median follow-up time was 9.5 years. Cancer biological variables were analyzed from tumor tissue microarrays using immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization and included ERBB2, TP53, and MK167 expression and ERBB2 amplification data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses of potential risk factors for distant recurrence of breast cancer and 10-year survival.
RESULTS: Of the 1983 women with unilateral invasive breast cancer, data on tumor diameter were available for 1918 women. Women with cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening had better estimated 10-year distant disease-free survival than women with tumors found outside of screening (tumor size of < or =10 mm [n = 386] 92% vs 85% [P =.04]; 11-20 mm [n = 808] 88% vs 76% [P<.001]; 21-30 mm [n = 409] 86% vs 63% [P =.008]; >30 mm [n = 315] 68% vs 50% [P =.12], respectively). In a Cox multivariate model that included cancer biological factors, the relative hazard ratio for distant recurrence among women with tumors detected outside of screening (HR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.11) was significantly higher than among women with tumors detected by mammography screening (P =.01). Breast cancer diagnosis by mammography screening was an independent prognostic variable reducing the relative HR for distant recurrence. This effect was equal to or greater than the effect of 1-cm decrease in tumor diameter (HR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening are associated with a better prognosis than tumors of similar size found outside of screening. The risk of distant metastases is overestimated for women diagnosed as having cancer by mammography screening unless the method of detection is taken into account in risk estimations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15339900     DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.9.1064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  56 in total

1.  Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and their impact on survival.

Authors:  N Kobayashi; M Hikichi; K Ushimado; A Sugioka; Y Kiriyama; M Kuroda; T Utsumi
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Implication of duration of clinical presentation on tumor progression and short-term recurrence in patients with early breast cancer.

Authors:  Takaaki Fujii; Reina Yajima; Hiroki Morita; Toshinaga Suto; Hironori Tatsuki; Soichi Tsutsumi; Hiroyuki Kuwano
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-03

3.  Self-detection remains a key method of breast cancer detection for U.S. women.

Authors:  Mara Y Roth; Joann G Elmore; Joyce P Yi-Frazier; Lisa M Reisch; Natalia V Oster; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Development of a patient-specific two-compartment anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  Nicolas D Prionas; George W Burkett; Sarah E McKenney; Lin Chen; Robin L Stern; John M Boone
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Comparison of breast cancer survival in two populations: Ardabil, Iran and British Columbia, Canada.

Authors:  Alireza Sadjadi; T Gregory Hislop; Chris Bajdik; Morteza Bashash; Anahita Ghorbani; Mehdi Nouraie; Masoud Babaei; Reza Malekzadeh; Parvin Yavari
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Molecular characteristics of screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancers and their impact on survival.

Authors:  S J Dawson; S W Duffy; F M Blows; K E Driver; E Provenzano; J LeQuesne; D C Greenberg; P Pharoah; C Caldas; G C Wishart
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Gordon C Wishart; Elizabeth M Azzato; David C Greenberg; Jem Rashbass; Olive Kearins; Gill Lawrence; Carlos Caldas; Paul D P Pharoah
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.