Literature DB >> 22584215

Aggressiveness features and outcomes of true interval cancers: comparison between screen-detected and symptom-detected cancers.

Laia Domingo1, Jordi Blanch, Sònia Servitja, Josep Maria Corominas, Cristiane Murta-Nascimento, Antonio Rueda, Maximino Redondo, Xavier Castells, Maria Sala.   

Abstract

The question of whether screen detection confers an additional survival benefit in breast cancer is unclear and subject to several biases. Our aim was to examine the role of the diagnostic method (screen-detected, symptom-detected, and true interval cancers) and the clinical-pathological features in relapse-free survival and overall survival in breast cancer patients. We included 228 invasive breast cancers diagnosed in Barcelona from 1996 to 2008 among women aged 50-69 years. Ninety-seven patients were screen detected within the screening, 34 truly arose between 2-year screening mammograms (true interval cancers), and 97 were symptom detected outside the screening. The clinical-pathological features at diagnosis were compared. The overall and disease-free survival probabilities were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were applied, with adjustment by clinical-pathological variables. At diagnosis, symptom-detected and true interval cancers were in more advanced stages and were less differentiated. The highest proportion of triple-negative cancers was detected among true interval cancers (P=0.002). At 5 years of follow-up, the disease-free survival rates for screen-detected, true interval, and symptom-detected cancers were 87.5% (95% confidence interval, 80.5-95.2%), 64.1% (46.4-88.5%), and 79.4% (71.0-88.8%), respectively, and the overall survival rates were 94.5% (89.3-99.9%), 65.5% (47.1-91.2%), and 85.6% (78.3-93.6%), respectively. True interval cancers had the highest hazard ratio for relapse prediction (1.89; 0.67-5.31) and a hazard ratio of death of 5.55 (1.61-19.15) after adjustment for tumor-node-metastasis stage and phenotype. Clinically detected tumors, especially true interval cancers, more frequently showed biological features related to worse prognosis and were associated with poorer survival even after adjustment for clinical-pathological characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22584215     DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328354d324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev        ISSN: 0959-8278            Impact factor:   2.497


  14 in total

1.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Associations between sociodemographic and clinicopathological factors and breast cancer subtypes in a population-based study.

Authors:  Adana A M Llanos; Sheenu Chandwani; Elisa V Bandera; Kim M Hirshfield; Yong Lin; Christine B Ambrosone; Kitaw Demissie
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  The Role of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment and Surgical Treatment of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancer in Older Women.

Authors:  Martha E Goodrich; Julie Weiss; Tracy Onega; Steve L Balch; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Symptomatic Breast Cancer Awareness despite a Recent Screen: The Role of Tumor Biology and Mammography Facility Characteristics.

Authors:  Mylove Mortel; Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Kent Hoskins; Richard B Warnecke
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Organized screening detects breast cancer at earlier stage regardless of molecular phenotype.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Li Jiang; Marlo Whitehead; Jennifer M Racz; Patti A Groome
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Impact of risk factors on different interval cancer subtypes in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Jordi Blanch; Maria Sala; Josefa Ibáñez; Laia Domingo; Belén Fernandez; Arantza Otegi; Teresa Barata; Raquel Zubizarreta; Joana Ferrer; Xavier Castells; Montserrat Rué; Dolores Salas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study.

Authors:  Fredrik Strand; Keith Humphreys; Abbas Cheddad; Sven Törnberg; Edward Azavedo; John Shepherd; Per Hall; Kamila Czene
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Kylie Hunter
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-04-13

9.  Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme.

Authors:  A Dibden; J Offman; D Parmar; J Jenkins; J Slater; K Binysh; J McSorley; S Scorfield; P Cumming; X-H Liao; M Ryan; D Harker; G Stevens; N Rogers; R Blanks; S Sellars; J Patnick; S W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Evaluation of the interval cancer rate and its determinants on the Girona Health Region's early breast cancer detection program.

Authors:  Gemma Renart-Vicens; Montserrat Puig-Vives; Joan Albanell; Francesc Castañer; Joana Ferrer; Miquel Carreras; Joan Tarradas; Maria Sala; Rafael Marcos-Gragera
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.