Literature DB >> 15615996

Detection of breast cancer on screening mammography allows patients to be treated with less-toxic therapy.

Richard J Barth1, Glen R Gibson, Patricia A Carney, Leila A Mott, Robert D Becher, Steven P Poplack.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Therapy for breast cancer is accompanied by acute and chronic toxicity. Little research has been conducted to determine the impact of the mode of breast cancer detection on the likelihood of receiving different types of treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether detection of breast cancer on screening mammography is associated with less-toxic therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group for this retrospective cohort study consisted of 992 women with invasive breast cancer detected on screening mammography (n = 460) or at physical examination (n = 532) at a single institution between 1990 and 2001. To address the generalizability of study findings, we compared the characteristics of study participants with those diagnosed with breast cancer in a population-based mammography registry.
RESULTS: The patients whose breast cancer was detected on screening mammography more frequently had lymph nodes free of metastases (84% vs 58%, p < 0.0001), had smaller tumors (1.5 vs 2.9 cm, p < 0.0001), were more likely to be treated with breast conservation (56% vs 32%, p < 0.0001), and were less likely to be treated with chemotherapy (28% vs 56%, p < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis with adjustments for age and functional status, patients whose cancer was detected at physical examination were more than twice as likely to undergo mastectomy (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.3) and nearly three times as likely to be treated with chemotherapy (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9). For younger women (40-49 years old), the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy was more than doubled if the cancer was detected at physical examination rather than on screening mammograms (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.0). For older women (>/= 70 years old), patients whose cancer was detected at physical examination were five times more likely to undergo mastectomy (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 3.2-10.5) and four times more likely to receive chemotherapy (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.6-13) than the group whose tumors were detected on screening mammography.
CONCLUSION: Breast cancers detected on screening mammography are smaller, are less likely to metastasize to lymph nodes, and are more likely to be treated with breast conservation and without chemotherapy. These findings provide an additional rationale for performing screening mammography, especially for women at age extremes for whom the survival benefit of screening mammography is debated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15615996     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  21 in total

1.  Declining mammography screening in a state Medicaid Fee-for-Service program: 1999-2008.

Authors:  Abhijeet Bhanegaonkar; S Suresh Madhavan; Rahul Khanna; Scot C Remick
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update.

Authors:  Mackenzie S Fuller; Christoph I Lee; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 5.456

Review 3.  Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Revamp governance of Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

Authors:  Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  The authors respond to: "Revamp governance of Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care".

Authors:  Scott W Klarenbach; Ainsley E Moore; Brett D Thombs
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Breast cancer screening policy-good science should trump bad politics.

Authors:  M J Yaffe
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Utilization of screening mammography among middle-aged and older women.

Authors:  Matthew Lee Smith; Angela K Hochhalter; SangNam Ahn; Meghan M Wernicke; Marcia G Ory
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Development of a Bayesian classifier for breast cancer risk stratification: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Alexander Stojadinovic; Christina Eberhardt; Leonard Henry; John Eberhardt; Eric A Elster; George E Peoples; Aviram Nissan; Craig D Shriver
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2010-03-29

9.  Rapid noninvasive optical imaging of tissue composition in breast tumor margins.

Authors:  Lee G Wilke; J Quincy Brown; Torre M Bydlon; Stephanie A Kennedy; Lisa M Richards; Marlee K Junker; Jennifer Gallagher; William T Barry; Joseph Geradts; Nimmi Ramanujam
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  A Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Form Accurately Transfers Supine MRI-Derived Tumor Localization Information to Guide Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  Richard J Barth; Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy; Keith D Paulsen; Timothy B Rooney; Wendy A Wells; Elizabeth Rizzo; Christina V Angeles; Jonathan D Marotti; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Candice C Black
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.