Literature DB >> 20108093

Outcomes of multimodality breast screening for women at increased risk of familial breast cancer.

Ian C Bennett1, Jennifer Muller, Linda Cockburn, Helen Joshua, Gillian Thorley, Christine Baker, Nili Wood, Jane Brazier, Mark Jones, Nathan Dunn, Michael Gattas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While population-based breast screening for women over the age of 50 years is a generally accepted and proven health strategy, the role of breast screening specifically among women at high risk of familial breast cancer has remained controversial. Indeed, there are very few services specifically offering a breast-screening program for women at high risk of familial breast cancer.
METHODS: In 1999 a Familial Breast Cancer Screening Clinic (FBCSC) was established at the North Brisbane BreastScreen Queensland Service to provide a regular multimodality screening program utilizing clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound, and mammography for women at higher risk of hereditary breast cancer and with entry into the program commencing from the age of 30 years.
RESULTS: Since its inception, a total of 2440 women have participated in the FBCSC. A total 7051 breast-screening examinations have been performed on these participants, with 53 breast cancers being diagnosed, including 8 in situ ductal carcinomas, 38 invasive ductal carcinomas, and 7 invasive lobular carcinomas. The mean size of the cancers was 16 mm (range = 1-45 mm), and of the 45 invasive cancers, 60% were less than or equal to 15 mm in size. The overall axillary node positive rate was 24.5% (13/53). The invasive cancer detection rate for first-round screening was 8.3 cancers per 1000 women screened, with 5.2 cancers per 1000 women detected on subsequent round screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from this service demonstrate that multimodality screening for women at high risk of familial breast cancer and including women of younger age is effective and appropriate, with very acceptable cancer detection rates and pathological cancer characteristics being observed consistent with early-stage detection. The colocated siting of this service within a BreastScreen Queensland facility has proven to be efficient and cost effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20108093     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0409-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  38 in total

1.  Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  C R Smart; R E Hendrick; J H Rutledge; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history.

Authors:  D A Berry; G Parmigiani; J Sanchez; J Schildkraut; E Winer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Screening mammography and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study.

Authors:  Steven A Narod; Jan Lubinski; Parviz Ghadirian; Henry T Lynch; Pal Moller; William D Foulkes; Barry Rosen; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Claudine Isaacs; Susan Domchek; Susan Domcheck; Ping Sun
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40.

Authors:  L M Foxcroft; E B Evans; A J Porter
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  [The diagnostic role of breast echography].

Authors:  S Ciatto; M Rosselli del Turco; S Catarzi; D Morrone; R Bonardi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.469

8.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Genetic analysis of breast cancer in the cancer and steroid hormone study.

Authors:  E B Claus; N Risch; W D Thompson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  3 in total

1.  Ten years after human genome sequencing: is personalized breast screening and prevention reality?

Authors:  Christos Katsios; Dimitrios H Roukos
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Breast magnetic resonance imaging: are those who need it getting it?

Authors:  S Tan; J David; L Lalonde; M El Khoury; M Labelle; R Younan; E Patocskai; J Richard; I Trop
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  The role of ultrasound in the management of breast disease.

Authors:  Ian C Bennett; Magdalena A Biggar
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.