Elizabeth Buckley1, Tom Sullivan2, Gelareh Farshid3, Janet Hiller4, David Roder5. 1. School of Population Health, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia. Electronic address: elizabeth.buckley@unisa.edu.au. 2. School of Population Health, University of Adelaide, Level 7, 178 North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia. 3. BreastScreen SA, 1 Goodwood Rd, Wayville, South Australia 5034, Australia. 4. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Mail no H24, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia. 5. School of Population Health, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few population-based data are available indicating the breast cancer risk following detection of atypia within a breast screening program. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the South Australian screening program were linked with the state cancer registry. Absolute and relative breast cancer risk estimates were calculated for ADH and ALH separately, and by age at diagnosis and time since diagnosis. Post-hoc analysis was undertaken of the effect of family history on breast cancer risk. RESULTS: Women with ADH and ALH had an increase in relative risk for malignancy (ADH HR 2.81 [95% CI 1.72, 4.59] and (ALH HR 4.14 [95% CI 1.97, 8.69], respectively. Differences in risk profile according to time since diagnosis and age at diagnosis were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the relative risk of breast cancer are necessary to inform decisions regarding clinical management and/or treatment of women with ADH and ALH.
BACKGROUND: Few population-based data are available indicating the breast cancer risk following detection of atypia within a breast screening program. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the South Australian screening program were linked with the state cancer registry. Absolute and relative breast cancer risk estimates were calculated for ADH and ALH separately, and by age at diagnosis and time since diagnosis. Post-hoc analysis was undertaken of the effect of family history on breast cancer risk. RESULTS:Women with ADH and ALH had an increase in relative risk for malignancy (ADH HR 2.81 [95% CI 1.72, 4.59] and (ALH HR 4.14 [95% CI 1.97, 8.69], respectively. Differences in risk profile according to time since diagnosis and age at diagnosis were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the relative risk of breast cancer are necessary to inform decisions regarding clinical management and/or treatment of women with ADH and ALH.
Authors: Ellen L Nutter; Julia E Weiss; Jonathan D Marotti; Richard J Barth; M Scottie Eliassen; Martha E Goodrich; Curtis L Petersen; Tracy Onega Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 6.860