Literature DB >> 24451829

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer.

Michael Alvarado1, Elissa Ozanne1, Laura Esserman1.   

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Through greater awareness, mammographic screening, and aggressive biopsy of calcifications, the proportion of low-grade, early stage cancers and in situ lesions among all breast cancers has risen substantially. The introduction of molecular testing has increased the recognition of lower risk subtypes, and less aggressive treatments are more commonly recommended for these subtypes. Mammographically detected breast cancers are much more likely to have low-risk biology than symptomatic tumors found between screenings (interval cancers) or that present as clinical masses. Recognizing the lower risk associated with these lesions and the ability to confirm the risk with molecular tests should safely enable the use of less aggressive treatments. Importantly, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, or what have been called stage I cancers, in and of themselves are not life-threatening. In situ lesions have been treated in a manner similar to that of invasive cancer, but there is little evidence to support that this practice has improved mortality. It is also being recognized that DCIS lesions are heterogeneous, and a substantial proportion of them may in fact be precursors of more indolent invasive cancers. Increasing evidence suggests that these lesions are being overtreated. The introduction of molecular tests should be able to help usher in a change in approach to these lesions. Reclassifying these lesions as part of the spectrum of high-risk lesions enables the use of a prevention approach. Learning from the experience with active surveillance in prostate cancer should empower the introduction of new approaches, with a focus on preventing invasive cancer, especially given that there are effective, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved breast cancer preventive interventions.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 24451829     DOI: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book        ISSN: 1548-8748


  17 in total

Review 1.  Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Authors:  Jessica C Germino; Joann G Elmore; Ruth C Carlos; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 2.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: a brief review of treatment variation and impacts on patients and society.

Authors:  Christine Vatovec; Mujde Z Erten; Jane Kolodinsky; Phil Brown; Marie Wood; Ted James; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.807

3.  Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: decision-making, extent of surgery, and outcomes.

Authors:  Amanda K Price; Reese W Randle; David F Schneider; Rebecca S Sippel; Susan C Pitt
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.192

4.  Do LORIS Trial Eligibility Criteria Identify a Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Patient Population at Low Risk of Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma?

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Michelle Stempel; Hope Rosenfeld; Anne Eaton; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Live-cell phenotypic-biomarker microfluidic assay for the risk stratification of cancer patients via machine learning.

Authors:  Michael S Manak; Jonathan S Varsanik; Brad J Hogan; Matt J Whitfield; Wendell R Su; Nikhil Joshi; Nicolai Steinke; Andrew Min; Delaney Berger; Robert J Saphirstein; Gauri Dixit; Thiagarajan Meyyappan; Hui-May Chu; Kevin B Knopf; David M Albala; Grannum R Sant; Ashok C Chander
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 25.671

6.  Suspicious breast calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy in women ages 70 and over: Breast cancer incidence by BI-RADS descriptors.

Authors:  Lars J Grimm; David Y Johnson; Karen S Johnson; Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo; E Shelley Hwang; Sujata V Ghate
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Value of MRI in medicine: More than just another test?

Authors:  Edwin J R van Beek; Christiane Kuhl; Yoshimi Anzai; Patricia Desmond; Richard L Ehman; Qiyong Gong; Garry Gold; Vikas Gulani; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Tim Leiner; C C Tschoyoson Lim; James G Pipe; Scott Reeder; Caroline Reinhold; Marion Smits; Daniel K Sodickson; Clare Tempany; H Alberto Vargas; Meiyun Wang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  How do I screen patients for breast cancer?

Authors:  Helen Krontiras; Rachel Bramlett; Heidi Umphrey
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2013-03

9.  Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Sarah Stamler; Jennifer Brooks; Jennifer Kaplan; Tammy Huang; D David Dershaw; Carol H Lee; Elizabeth A Morris; Christopher E Comstock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review.

Authors:  Emily B Peterson; Jamie S Ostroff; Katherine N DuHamel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Marisol Hernandez; Mollie R Canzona; Carma L Bylund
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 4.018

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.