Literature DB >> 24114015

Mortality and recurrence patterns of breast cancer patients diagnosed under a screening programme versus comparable non-screened breast cancer patients from the same population: analytical survey from 2002 to 2012.

A García Fernández1, C Chabrera, M García Font, M Fraile, J M Lain, S Gónzalez, C Corral, M Torras, J Torres, M Teixido, I Barco, R López, C Gónzalez, A Pessarrodona, N Giménez.   

Abstract

Breast cancer screening programmes seem to bring about significant benefits, including decreased mortality, although they may also have some drawbacks such as false-negative and false-positive results. This study aims to compare the clinical outcome of a group of patients undergoing a breast cancer screening programme with that of a synchronous non-screened group of patients matched for age and follow-up period. We studied basic characteristics of epidemiology, immunohistochemistry, loco-regional relapse, distant metastases, disease-free interval and overall and specific mortality. We compared 510 patients in the screened group with 394 non-screened patients, along the period of 2002-2012. Screening was applied on a target population of 49,847 and was based on double-projection, double-read mammograms. Two years were allowed per round. Overall participation for the five rounds considered was 75.2%, with 86.5% coverage, and a total cumulative population of 123,445. The non-participant women amounted 40,794. Tumour detection rate for the screened women was 3.8 per thousand (475/123,445), while the corresponding rate for non-participants was 9.4 per thousand (382/40,797). Incidence of luminal A subtype was 15% higher in screened than that in non-screened patients (95% confidence interval (CI) 8-22%). Conversely, the triple-negative subtype was 6% higher in the non-screened group (95% CI 2-10%). Incidence of breast conservative treatments and sentinel node biopsies was significantly higher in the screened group. Overall mortality was 2.6 times higher in non-screened than that in screened group (95% CI 1.2-5.6) After 10 years of experience with our own screening programme, we believe that included patients receive a benefit versus comparable non-screened breast cancer patients, with acceptable benefit-risk relation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24114015     DOI: 10.1007/s13277-013-1260-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tumour Biol        ISSN: 1010-4283


  28 in total

Review 1.  Issues underlying the evaluation of screening programmes.

Authors:  C S Peckham; C Dezateux
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.291

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Mammographic screening and "overdiagnosis".

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; John D Keen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Clinical practice. Breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Ellen Warner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort.

Authors:  Barbro Numan Hellquist; Stephen W Duffy; Shahin Abdsaleh; Lena Björneld; Pál Bordás; László Tabár; Bedrich Viták; Sophia Zackrisson; Lennarth Nyström; Håkan Jonsson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012.

Authors:  J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Survival of women with breast cancer in central and northern Denmark, 1998-2009.

Authors:  Lone Winther Lietzen; Gitte Vrelits Sørensen; Anne Gulbech Ording; Jens Peter Garne; Peer Christiansen; Mette Nørgaard; Jacob Jacobsen
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol; Anna Gavin; Lars J Vatten
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-07-28
View more
  4 in total

1.  Barriers to cancer screening among Orthodox Jewish women.

Authors:  Rifky Tkatch; Janella Hudson; Anne Katz; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Jennifer Vichich; Susan Eggly; Louis A Penner; Terrance L Albrecht
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2014-12

Review 2.  Molecular Subtypes and Local-Regional Control of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Simona Maria Fragomeni; Andrew Sciallis; Jacqueline S Jeruss
Journal:  Surg Oncol Clin N Am       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.495

3.  A study comparing two consecutive historical periods in breast cancer with a focus on surgical treatment, loco-regional recurrence, distant metastases and mortality.

Authors:  A García-Fernández; C Chabrera; M García-Font; M Fraile; I Barco; S González; L Cirera; J M Lain; C González; E Veloso; L Codina; M Piqueras; A Pessarrodona; N Gimenez
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  Differential patterns of recurrence and specific survival between luminal A and luminal B breast cancer according to recent changes in the 2013 St Gallen immunohistochemical classification.

Authors:  A García Fernández; C Chabrera; M García Font; M Fraile; J M Lain; S Gónzalez; I Barco; C González; J Torres; M Piqueras; L Cirera; E Veloso; A Pessarrodona; N Giménez
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 3.405

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.