Literature DB >> 1547414

Aggressiveness of breast cancers found with and without screening.

P J Klemi1, H Joensuu, S Toikkanen, J Tuominen, O Räsänen, J Tyrkkö, I Parvinen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine how breast cancers found by mammographic screening differ from those found outside screening.
DESIGN: Comparative cohort study.
SETTING: Turku, southwestern Finland. PATIENTS: 126 women aged 40-74 years with breast cancer detected during the first round of mammographic screening in 1987-90 and 125 women within the same age range with breast cancer detected outside screening during the same period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary tumour size, axillary nodal status, histological features, oestrogen and progesterone receptor concentrations, ploidy, and S phase fraction.
RESULTS: Compared with the controls women with cancers detected by screening had a smaller primary tumour (57 (46%) screened v 11 (10%) controls had tumours less than or equal to 11 mm in diameter, p less than 0.0001), and less often had axillary nodal metastases (104 (83%) screened v 71 (57%) controls node negative, p less than 0.0001). After adjustment for the smaller size of the primary tumour compared with control cancers, those cancers detected by screening were less likely to have axillary nodal metastases (odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.84), poor histological differentiation (0.20, 0.08 to 0.49), high mitotic counts (0.38, 0.15 to 0.97), tumour necrosis (0.45, 0.22 to 0.93) or to be of the ductal histological type (0.46, 0.22 to 0.95). They had low oestrogen receptor (0.29, 0.12 to 0.70) and progesterone receptor (0.35, 0.17 to 0.92) concentrations less often and had smaller S phase fractions (0.72, 0.55 to 0.96) than control cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjustment for the smaller size of screen detected breast cancers, their histological and cytometric features suggest low malignant potential. They may also be less likely to metastasise to axillary lymph nodes than cancers found outside screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1547414      PMCID: PMC1881111          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.304.6825.467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  12 in total

1.  Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years.

Authors:  M M Roberts; F E Alexander; T J Anderson; U Chetty; P T Donnan; P Forrest; W Hepburn; A Huggins; A E Kirkpatrick; J Lamb
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-02-03       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981.

Authors:  A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac; F Sturmans; N E Day
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-06-02       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: a randomized trial with breast cancer screening.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1985-05

4.  Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin-embedded pathological material using flow cytometry.

Authors:  D W Hedley; M L Friedlander; I W Taylor; C A Rugg; E A Musgrove
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 2.479

5.  DNA flow cytometric analysis indicates that many breast cancers detected in the first round of mammographic screening have a low malignant potential.

Authors:  O P Kallioniemi; A Kärkkäinen; O Auvinen; J Mattila; T Koivula; M Hakama
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1988-11-15       Impact factor: 7.396

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.  Measurement of S-phase fractions in lymphoid tissue comparing fresh versus paraffin-embedded tissue and 4',6'-diamidino-2 phenylindole dihydrochloride versus propidium iodide staining.

Authors:  R S Camplejohn; J C Macartney; R W Morris
Journal:  Cytometry       Date:  1989-07

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Histological features, DNA content and prognosis of breast carcinoma found incidentally or in screening.

Authors:  H Joensuu; S Toikkanen; P J Klemi
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination.

Authors:  S Koscielny; M Tubiana; M G Lê; A J Valleron; H Mouriesse; G Contesso; D Sarrazin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Is clinical breast examination an acceptable alternative to mammographic screening?

Authors:  I Mittra; M Baum; H Thornton; J Houghton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-28

2.  The health of the nation from a local perspective.

Authors:  D Cox
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Aggressiveness of breast cancers detected by screening.

Authors:  S W Duffy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-23

4.  Hormone replacement therapy for all? Universal prescription is desirable.

Authors:  P Toozs-Hobson; L Cardozo
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-10

5.  Screening for neuroblastoma.

Authors:  M H Duncan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-01-09

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

Review 7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Changes in incidence of and mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales since introduction of screening. United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries.

Authors:  M Quinn; E Allen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.