Literature DB >> 23263739

Reduction in rate of node metastases with breast screening: consistency of association with tumor size.

I D Nagtegaal1, S W Duffy.   

Abstract

Population screening has brought about changes in both the incidence and mortality rates of patients with breast cancer. Large numbers of small screen-detected tumors have inspired discussions about overdiagnosis based on potential biological differences between screen-detected and symptomatic cancers. In the current systematic review, we analyzed the relation and the interaction of tumor size and nodal status in correlation with screening. Smaller tumors were more frequently screen detected (pT1 78.5 %) than symptomatic (pT1 61.7 %, p < 0.001), with a RR of 1.6 (95 % CI 1.4-1.8, n = 41,209). In the screened population, pT1 tumors were also more frequent (68.5 vs 49.9 %, n = 51,171, p < 0.001). Positive lymph nodes were less frequent in screen-detected tumors (26.8 vs 46.3 %, n = 43,705, p < 0.001) as well as in screened populations as a whole (24.1 vs 44.9 %, n = 49,581, p < 0.001). The relation between size and nodal status was not different between the screen-detected and the symptomatic tumors [pT2+N+ OR 2.42 (95 % CI 1.69-3.48) vs OR 2.91 (95 % CI 2.41-3.51)], suggesting that biological differences, if present, are small. In this systematic review, we confirmed both the association of screening with smaller tumor size at presentation and the consequent reduction in lymph node metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23263739     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2384-y

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


  5 in total

1.  Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country.

Authors:  Sibel Ozkan Gurdal; Ayse Nilufer Ozaydın; Erkin Aribal; Beyza Ozcinar; Neslihan Cabioglu; Cennet Sahin; Vahit Ozmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.630

2.  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

Review 3.  The impact of mammography screening programmes on incidence of advanced breast cancer in Europe: a literature review.

Authors:  M J M Broeders; P Allgood; S W Duffy; S Hofvind; I D Nagtegaal; E Paci; S M Moss; L Bucchi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Olena Mandrik; Nadine Zielonke; Filip Meheus; J L Hans Severens; Neela Guha; Rolando Herrero Acosta; Raul Murillo
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; László Tabár; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Peter B Dean; Robert A Smith; Håkan Jonsson; Sven Törnberg; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; May Mei-Sheng Ku; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Chen-Yang Hsu; Yu-Ching Chen; Gunilla Svane; Edward Azavedo; Helene Grundström; Per Sundén; Karin Leifland; Ewa Frodis; Joakim Ramos; Birgitta Epstein; Anders Åkerlund; Ann Sundbom; Pál Bordás; Hans Wallin; Leena Starck; Annika Björkgren; Stina Carlson; Irma Fredriksson; Johan Ahlgren; Daniel Öhman; Lars Holmberg; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.