BACKGROUND: Women < or = 40 years account for 5% of new breast cancer diagnoses. Although there is increased awareness of genetic and other breast cancer risk factors, it is not clear whether this has resulted in earlier diagnosis in young women. METHODS: A database review identified 8892 women treated for breast cancer from 1980 to 2002. We compared 925 women aged < or = 40 years with 2362 women aged 50 to 60 years. The mean and median tumor size and lymph node status were determined for each group. RESULTS: There were significant differences in tumor size and lymph node status in younger versus older women. From 1980 to the mid 1990s, tumor size and nodal status did not differ. Since the mid 1990s, tumor size has decreased more rapidly for women aged 50 to 60 years than for those < or = 40 years. In 1998 to 2002, the mean tumor size reached a plateau of 1.8 cm in women 50 to 60 years, compared with a plateau of 2.4 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). The median tumor size in 1998 to 2002 was 1.4 cm in women 50 to 60 years compared with 1.9 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). Lymph node status was also significantly different during 1998 to 2002: 23.9% positive in women 50 to 60 years versus 35.2% in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the 1980s, women aged 50 to 60 years have enjoyed a greater decrease in tumor size and percentage with positive nodes. These data could be the result of ineffective screening of younger women or of more aggressive tumor biology. Further study is required to determine whether more effective identification and screening of young, high-risk women can result in earlier detection.
BACKGROUND:Women < or = 40 years account for 5% of new breast cancer diagnoses. Although there is increased awareness of genetic and other breast cancer risk factors, it is not clear whether this has resulted in earlier diagnosis in young women. METHODS: A database review identified 8892 women treated for breast cancer from 1980 to 2002. We compared 925 women aged < or = 40 years with 2362 women aged 50 to 60 years. The mean and median tumor size and lymph node status were determined for each group. RESULTS: There were significant differences in tumor size and lymph node status in younger versus older women. From 1980 to the mid 1990s, tumor size and nodal status did not differ. Since the mid 1990s, tumor size has decreased more rapidly for women aged 50 to 60 years than for those < or = 40 years. In 1998 to 2002, the mean tumor size reached a plateau of 1.8 cm in women 50 to 60 years, compared with a plateau of 2.4 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). The median tumor size in 1998 to 2002 was 1.4 cm in women 50 to 60 years compared with 1.9 cm in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). Lymph node status was also significantly different during 1998 to 2002: 23.9% positive in women 50 to 60 years versus 35.2% in women < or = 40 years (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the 1980s, women aged 50 to 60 years have enjoyed a greater decrease in tumor size and percentage with positive nodes. These data could be the result of ineffective screening of younger women or of more aggressive tumor biology. Further study is required to determine whether more effective identification and screening of young, high-risk women can result in earlier detection.
Authors: Tasha R Smith; Wen Liu-Mares; Beth O Van Emburgh; Edward A Levine; Glenn O Allen; Jeff W Hill; Isildinha M Reis; Laura A Kresty; Mark D Pegram; Mark S Miller; Jennifer J Hu Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Donatus U Ekwueme; Gery P Guy; Sun Hee Rim; Arica White; Ingrid J Hall; Temeika L Fairley; Hazel D Dean Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ann H Partridge; Melissa E Hughes; Rebecca A Ottesen; Yu-Ning Wong; Stephen B Edge; Richard L Theriault; Douglas W Blayney; Joyce C Niland; Eric P Winer; Jane C Weeks; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Oncologist Date: 2012-05-03
Authors: Blanaid C Mee; Paul Carroll; Simona Donatello; Elizabeth Connolly; Mairead Griffin; Barbara Dunne; Louise Burke; Richard Flavin; Hala Rizkalla; Ciara Ryan; Brian Hayes; Charles D'Adhemar; Niamh Banville; Nazia Faheem; Cian Muldoon; Eoin F Gaffney Journal: Biopreserv Biobank Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Li Tao; Richard B Schwab; Yazmin San Miguel; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Alison J Canchola; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Ian K Komenaka; James D Murphy; Alfredo A Molinolo; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Erica T Warner; Graham A Colditz; Julie R Palmer; Ann H Partridge; Bernard A Rosner; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.872