Literature DB >> 21796368

Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial).

Cheryl Lin1, Meredith Becker Buxton, Dan Moore, Helen Krontiras, Lisa Carey, Angela DeMichele, Leslie Montgomery, Debasish Tripathy, Constance Lehman, Minetta Liu, Olufunmilayo Olapade, Christina Yau, Donald Berry, Laura J Esserman.   

Abstract

Interval cancers (ICs), defined as cancers detected between regular screening mammograms, have been shown to be of higher grade, larger size, and associated with lower survival, compared with screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and comprise 17% of cancers from population-based screening programs. We sought to determine the frequency of ICs in a study of locally advanced breast cancers, the I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Screening was defined as having a mammogram with 2 years, and the proportion of ICs at 1 and 2 years was calculated for screened patients. Differences in clinical characteristics for ICs versus SDCs and screened versus non-screened cancers were assessed. For the 219 evaluable women, mean tumor size was 6.8 cm. Overall, 80% of women were over 40 and eligible for screening; however, only 31% were getting screened. Among women screened, 85% were ICs, with 68% diagnosed within 1 year of a previously normal mammogram. ICs were of higher grade (49% vs. 10%) than SDCs. Among non-screened women, 28% (43/152) were younger than the recommended screening age of 40. Of the entire cohort, 12% of cancers were mammographically occult (MO); the frequency of MO cancers did not differ between screened (11%) and non-screened (15%). ICs were common in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL suggesting the potential need for new approaches beyond traditional screening to reduce mortality in women who present with larger palpable cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21796368      PMCID: PMC3975048          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1670-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  26 in total

1.  Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

Authors:  F D Gilliland; N Joste; P M Stauber; W C Hunt; R Rosenberg; G Redlich; C R Key
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.

Authors:  C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-08-17       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Growth rates of primary breast cancers.

Authors:  L Heuser; J S Spratt; H C Polk
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  The DOM project for the early detection of breast cancer, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Authors:  F de Waard; H J Collette; J J Rombach; E A Baanders-van Halewijn; C Honing
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1984

8.  Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias.

Authors:  R DeGroote; B F Rush; J Milazzo; M J Warden; J M Rocko
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Relation between mammary cancer growth kinetics and the intervals between screenings.

Authors:  L Heuser; J S Spratt; H C Polk; J Buchanan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  9 in total

1.  Screening: biology dictates the fate of young women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Martin Eklund; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Patient-centric trials for therapeutic development in precision oncology.

Authors:  Andrew V Biankin; Steven Piantadosi; Simon J Hollingsworth
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Local recurrence rates are low in high-risk neoadjuvant breast cancer in the I-SPY 1 Trial (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657).

Authors:  Elizabeth L Cureton; Christina Yau; Michael D Alvarado; Helen Krontiras; David W Ollila; Cheryl A Ewing; Sindy Monnier; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Breast cancer screening: the questions answered.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Laura J Esserman; Chris I Flowers; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 5.  An "elite hacker": breast tumors exploit the normal microenvironment program to instruct their progression and biological diversity.

Authors:  Aaron Boudreau; Laura J van't Veer; Mina J Bissell
Journal:  Cell Adh Migr       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.405

6.  Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment.

Authors:  Valesca P Retèl; Manuela A Joore; Sabine C Linn; Emiel J T Rutgers; Wim H van Harten
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-08-16

7.  The WISDOM study: a new approach to screening can and should be tested.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Martin Eklund; Laura Van't Veer; Yiwey Shieh; Jeffrey Tice; Elad Ziv; Amie Blanco; Celia Kaplan; Robert Hiatt; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Christina Yau; Maren Scheuner; Arash Naeim; Neil Wenger; Vivian Lee; Diane Heditsian; Susie Brain; Barbara A Parker; Andrea Z LaCroix; Lisa Madlensky; Michael Hogarth; Alexander Borowsky; Hoda Anton-Culver; Andrea Kaster; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Deepa Sheth; Augustin Garcia; Rachael Lancaster; Michael Plaza
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Why Has Breast Cancer Screening Failed to Decrease the Incidence of de Novo Stage IV Disease?

Authors:  Danielle R Heller; Alexander S Chiu; Kaitlin Farrell; Brigid K Killelea; Donald R Lannin
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design.

Authors:  Richard Kaplan; Timothy Maughan; Angela Crook; David Fisher; Richard Wilson; Louise Brown; Mahesh Parmar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 44.544

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.