Literature DB >> 21093374

Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study.

.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports a reduction in mortality from breast cancer with mammographic screening in the general population of women aged 40-49 years, but the effect of family history is not clear. We aimed to establish whether screening affects the disease stage and projected mortality of women younger than 50 years who have a clinically significant family history of breast cancer.
METHODS: In the single-arm FH01 study, women at intermediate familial risk who were younger than 50 years were enrolled from 76 centres in the UK, and received yearly mammography. Women with BRCA mutations were not explicitly excluded, but would be rare in this group. To compare the FH01 cohort with women not receiving screening, two external comparison groups were used: the control group of the UK Age Trial (106,971 women aged 40-42 years at recruitment, from the general population [ie, average risk], followed up for 10 years), and a Dutch study of women with a family history of breast cancer (cancer cases aged 25-77 years, diagnosed 1980-2004). Study endpoints were size, node status, and histological grade of invasive tumours, and estimated mortality calculated from the Nottingham prognostic index (NPI) score, and adjusted for differences in underlying risk between the FH01 cohort and the control group of the UK Age Trial. This study is registered with the National Research Register, number N0484114809.
FINDINGS: 6710 women were enrolled between Jan 16, 2003, and Feb 28, 2007, and received yearly mammography for a mean of 4 years (SD 2) up until Nov 30, 2009; surveillance and reporting of cancers is still underway. 136 women were diagnosed with breast cancer: 105 (77%) at screening, 28 (21%) symptomatically in the interval between screening events, and three (2%) symptomatically after failing to attend their latest mammogram. Invasive tumours in the FH01 study were significantly smaller (p=0·0094), less likely to be node positive (p=0·0083), and of more favourable grade (p=0·0072) than were those in the control group of the UK Age Trial, and were significantly less likely to be node positive than were tumours in the Dutch study (p=0·012). Mean NPI score was significantly lower in the FH01 cohort than in the control group of the UK Age Trial (p=0·00079) or the Dutch study (p<0·0001). After adjustment for underlying risk, predicted 10-year mortality was significantly lower in the FH01 cohort (1·10%) than in the control group of the UK Age Trial (1·38%), with relative risk of 0·80 (95% CI 0·66-0·96; p=0·022).
INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography in women with a medium familial risk of breast cancer is likely to be effective in prevention of deaths from breast cancer.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21093374     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70263-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  24 in total

1.  Choices for young women at intermediate risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Iqbal; S A Narod
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Anatomical complexity in breast parenchyma and its implications for optimal breast imaging strategies.

Authors:  Lin Chen; Craig K Abbey; Anita Nosratieh; Karen K Lindfors; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Screening magnetic resonance imaging recommendations and outcomes in patients at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Sima Ehsani; Roberta M Strigel; Erica Pettke; Lee Wilke; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Wendy B DeMartini; Kari B Wisinski
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Communication Among Melanoma Family Members.

Authors:  Deborah J Bowen; Terrance Albrecht; Jennifer Hay; Susan Eggly; Julie Harris-Wei; Hendrika Meischke; Wylie Burke
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2017-02-13

Review 5.  Global Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetics Testing, Counselling and Management.

Authors:  C H Yip; D G Evans; G Agarwal; I Buccimazza; A Kwong; R Morant; I Prakash; C Y Song; N A Taib; C Tausch; O Ung; S Meterissian
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 6.  Familial breast cancer: is it time to move from a reactive to a proactive role?

Authors:  H Harris; I Nippert; C Julian-Reynier; J Schmidtke; C van Asperen; D Gadzicki; A Tibben; D G Evans
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  The KinFact intervention - a randomized controlled trial to increase family communication about cancer history.

Authors:  Joann N Bodurtha; Donna McClish; Maria Gyure; Rosalie Corona; Alexander H Krist; Vivian M Rodríguez; Alisa M Maibauer; Joseph Borzelleca; Deborah J Bowen; John M Quillin
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

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

9.  A primary care audit of familial risk in patients with a personal history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Paul Nathan; Aneeta Ahluwalia; Wendy Chorley
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing.

Authors:  Jessica E Baars; Margreet G E M Ausems; Els van Riel; Marijke C Kars; Eveline M A Bleiker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.