AIMS: To compare prognostic factors in screen detected breast cancer (SDBC) and symptomatically presenting breast cancer (SBC). METHODS: Data were examined on 100 SDBC and 100 SBC. Multiple clinical patient factors were assessed including histopathological features. Using the Gail model each patient's risk of developing breast cancer was calculated and these data were examined for differences between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean age of patient presentation or in the risk of breast cancer development between groups (2.2% vs. 2.2%, SDBC vs. SBC, actuarial risk of cancer at 5 years). SDBC patients had a significantly lower grade (1.95 vs. 2.44, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05), a smaller size of tumour (15.4mm vs. 29.3mm, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05) and a higher rate of oestrogen (94% vs. 81%, P<0.05) and progesterone (75% vs. 52%, P<0.05) receptor positivity. When compared using the Nottingham Prognostic Index, SDBC was associated with a better prognosis (r=-0.444, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though both groups have similar demographics and risk, SDBC patients appear to have more favourable prognostic features. This has implications for the application of systemic therapy in breast cancer and supports the observation that SDBC is a more indolent form of disease.
AIMS: To compare prognostic factors in screen detected breast cancer (SDBC) and symptomatically presenting breast cancer (SBC). METHODS: Data were examined on 100 SDBC and 100 SBC. Multiple clinical patient factors were assessed including histopathological features. Using the Gail model each patient's risk of developing breast cancer was calculated and these data were examined for differences between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean age of patient presentation or in the risk of breast cancer development between groups (2.2% vs. 2.2%, SDBC vs. SBC, actuarial risk of cancer at 5 years). SDBCpatients had a significantly lower grade (1.95 vs. 2.44, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05), a smaller size of tumour (15.4mm vs. 29.3mm, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05) and a higher rate of oestrogen (94% vs. 81%, P<0.05) and progesterone (75% vs. 52%, P<0.05) receptor positivity. When compared using the Nottingham Prognostic Index, SDBC was associated with a better prognosis (r=-0.444, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though both groups have similar demographics and risk, SDBCpatients appear to have more favourable prognostic features. This has implications for the application of systemic therapy in breast cancer and supports the observation that SDBC is a more indolent form of disease.
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kathleen M Egan; Linda J Titus; Karla Kerlikowske; Patrick L Remington; Polly A Newcomb; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol; Carlo La Vecchia; Carlo LaVecchia; Lars Vatten; Anna Gavin; Clarisse Héry; Mary Heanue Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-08-11
Authors: Amalia Plotogea; Anna M Chiarelli; Lucia Mirea; Maegan V Prummel; Nelson Chong; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Claire Mb Holloway Journal: Springerplus Date: 2014-03-06
Authors: Mark E Sherman; Laura Ichikawa; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Jeffery Tice; Pamela M Vacek; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240