Literature DB >> 23733252

Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35-39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02).

D G Evans1, S Thomas, J Caunt, L Roberts, A Howell, M Wilson, R Fox, D M Sibbering, S Moss, M G Wallis, D M Eccles, S Duffy.   

Abstract

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35-39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32%). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23733252     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9661-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  27 in total

1.  Screening younger women with a family history of breast cancer--does early detection improve outcome?

Authors:  A Maurice; D G R Evans; A Shenton; L Ashcroft; A Baildam; L Barr; G Byrne; N Bundred; C Boggis; M Wilson; S W Duffy; A Howell
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30-49.

Authors:  Richard P A Norman; D Gareth Evans; Douglas F Easton; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2007-03-09

3.  Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975-1986).

Authors:  E Paci; S W Duffy
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Mackay; C Rogers; H Fielder; R Blamey; D Macmillan; C Boggis; J Brown; P D Pharoah; S Moss; N E Day; J Myles; J Austoker; J Gray; J Cuzick; S W Duffy
Journal:  J Epidemiol Biostat       Date:  2001

5.  The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization.

Authors:  N Bjurstam; L Björneld; S W Duffy; T C Smith; E Cahlin; O Eriksson; L O Hafström; H Lingaas; J Mattsson; S Persson; C M Rudenstam; J Säve-Söderbergh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).

Authors:  M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 21-27       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidence rates a cause for concern?

Authors:  E Paci; J Warwick; P Falini; S W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

Authors:  Jonathan Tyrer; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Predictors of breast cancer-related distress following mammography screening in younger women on a family history breast screening programme.

Authors:  K Brain; B J Henderson; S Tyndel; C Bankhead; E Watson; A Clements; J Austoker
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Susan M Astley; Maureen G C Gillan; Olorunsola F Agbaje; Matthew G Wallis; Jonathan James; Caroline R M Boggis; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services.

Authors:  D Gareth Evans; Julian Barwell; Diana M Eccles; Amanda Collins; Louise Izatt; Chris Jacobs; Alan Donaldson; Angela F Brady; Andrew Cuthbert; Rachel Harrison; Sue Thomas; Anthony Howell; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Alex Murray
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 6.466

4.  Tumour characteristics and survival in familial breast cancer prospectively diagnosed by annual mammography.

Authors:  Pål Møller; Kukatharmini Tharmaratnam; Anthony Howell; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Sampson; Andrew Wallace; Anthony J Maxwell; Anne Irene Hagen; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  The clinical utility of genetic testing in breast cancer kindreds: a prospective study in families without a demonstrable BRCA mutation.

Authors:  Pål Møller; Astrid Stormorken; Marit Muri Holmen; Anne Irene Hagen; Anita Vabø; Lovise Mæhle
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Targeting breast cancer outcomes-what about the primary relatives?

Authors:  Alison Johnston; Michael Sugrue
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.183

7.  Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  D G Evans; S Thomas; J Caunt; A Burch; A R Brentnall; L Roberts; A Howell; M Wilson; R Fox; S Hillier; D M Sibbering; S Moss; M G Wallis; D M Eccles; S Duffy
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2019-01

8.  Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support.

Authors:  Nadeem Qureshi; Brittany Dutton; Stephen Weng; Christina Sheehan; Wendy Chorley; John F R Robertson; Denise Kendrick; Joe Kai
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  No strong evidence for increased risk of breast cancer 8-26 years after multiple mammograms in their 30s in females at moderate and high familial risk.

Authors:  D Gareth Evans; C John Kotre; Elaine Harkness; Mary Wilson; Anthony J Maxwell; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 3.039

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.