AIM: To document the prevalence of family history of breast cancer (BC) amongst women newly-diagnosed with invasive BC and to explore the relationship between family history and cancer size and stage. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on baseline questionnaire data from a cohort study of 1,684 women diagnosed with invasive BC within the previous 12 months and recruited between 2004 and 2006 in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: Women with affected first degree relative(s) were more likely to have a smaller BC (odds ratio for <or=10 mm 1.74, 95% CI: 1.32-2.29) and stage I BC (odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70) at diagnosis than women with no affected relatives. There was no significant difference in BC size and stage between women with only affected second degree relatives and women with no affected relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Women with a first degree relative with BC had smaller, earlier stage cancers at diagnosis, possibly reflecting more diligent use of breast screening amongst women who considered themselves at increased risk of developing the disease.
AIM: To document the prevalence of family history of breast cancer (BC) amongst women newly-diagnosed with invasive BC and to explore the relationship between family history and cancer size and stage. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on baseline questionnaire data from a cohort study of 1,684 women diagnosed with invasive BC within the previous 12 months and recruited between 2004 and 2006 in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS:Women with affected first degree relative(s) were more likely to have a smaller BC (odds ratio for <or=10 mm 1.74, 95% CI: 1.32-2.29) and stage I BC (odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70) at diagnosis than women with no affected relatives. There was no significant difference in BC size and stage between women with only affected second degree relatives and women with no affected relatives. CONCLUSIONS:Women with a first degree relative with BC had smaller, earlier stage cancers at diagnosis, possibly reflecting more diligent use of breast screening amongst women who considered themselves at increased risk of developing the disease.
Authors: Yoland C Antill; John Reynolds; Mary Anne Young; Judy A Kirk; Katherine M Tucker; Tarli L Bogtstra; Shirley S Wong; Tracy E Dudding; Juliana L Di Iulio; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2006-07-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Antonio Russo; Andrea Herd-Smith; Donella Gestri; Simonetta Bianchi; Vanna Vezzosi; Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Gaetano Cardona Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J M Murabito; J C Evans; M G Larson; B E Kreger; G L Splansky; K M Freund; M A Moskowitz; P W Wilson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: H M Verkooijen; G Fioretta; P O Chappuis; G Vlastos; A P Sappino; S Benhamou; C Bouchardy Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: G A Colditz; W C Willett; D J Hunter; M J Stampfer; J E Manson; C H Hennekens; B A Rosner Journal: JAMA Date: 1993-07-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Megan L Welsh; Diana S M Buist; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Melissa L Anderson; Joann G Elmore; Christopher I Li Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 4.872