Literature DB >> 26531756

Mammographic and clinical characteristics of different phenotypes of screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a nationwide screening program.

Marisa Baré1,2,3, Núria Torà4,5, Dolores Salas6, Melchor Sentís7, Joana Ferrer8, Josefa Ibáñez6, Raquel Zubizarreta9, Garbiñe Sarriugarte10, Teresa Barata11, Laia Domingo12, Xavier Castells13,5,12, Maria Sala13,5,12.   

Abstract

In the context of a population-based screening program, we aimed to evaluate the major mammographic features and clinicopathological characteristics of breast tumors at diagnosis and the associations between them, focusing on tumors with the worst prognosis. We analyzed cancers diagnosed in a cohort of 645,764 women aged 45-69 years participating in seven population-based screening programs in Spain, between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 and followed up until June 2009. We included all interval cancers and a sample of screen-detected cancers, whether invasive or in situ. We compared tumor-related information and breast density for different phenotypes (Triple-negative (TN), HER2+, Luminal B and Luminal A) in screen-detected and interval cancers. We used Chi-square or Fisher's exact test to compare major mammographic features of invasive versus in situ tumors, of screen-detected versus interval cancers, and of different types of interval cancers. We included 2582 tumors (1570 screen-detected and 1012 interval cancers). There were significant differences in the distribution of most clinicopathological variables between screen-detected and interval cancers. Invasive TN interval tumors were more common than other phenotypes in breasts with low mammographic density; three-quarters of these tumors presented as masses without associated calcifications. HER2+ tumors were more common in denser breasts and were associated with calcifications and multifocality. Architectural distortion was more common in Luminal A and Luminal B tumors. Certain radiologic findings are associated with pre-invasive lesions; these differ among invasive tumor phenotypes. We corroborate that TN and HER2+ cancers have distinctive appearances also in the context of population-based screening programs. This information can be useful for establishing protocols for diagnostic strategies in screening units.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; HER2+; Interval cancer; Mammographic features; Screening; Triple-negative

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26531756     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3623-9

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


  12 in total

1.  PAM50 and Risk of Recurrence Scores for Interval Breast Cancers.

Authors:  Samantha Puvanesarajah; Sarah J Nyante; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Mengjie Chen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Erin L Kirk; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2018-04-05

2.  The Complexity of Achieving the Promise of Precision Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Is There a Correlation between the Presence of a Spiculated Mass on Mammogram and Luminal A Subtype Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Song Liu; Xiao-Dong Wu; Wen-Jian Xu; Qing Lin; Xue-Jun Liu; Ying Li
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  RE: Is There a Correlation between the Presence of a Spiculated Mass on Mammogram and Luminal A Subtype Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Rong-Pin Wang; Li Xu; Shuqin Zhou; Nanzhu Wang; Lei Tang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Microcalcification and BMP-2 in breast cancer: correlation with clinicopathological features and outcomes.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Chunfang Hao; Yansheng Wu; Yuying Zhu; Yulin Ren; Zhongsheng Tong
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  In-cell determination of Lactate Dehydrogenase Activity in a Luminal Breast Cancer Model ⁻ ex vivo Investigation of Excised Xenograft Tumor Slices Using dDNP Hyperpolarized [1-13C]pyruvate.

Authors:  Yael Adler-Levy; Atara Nardi-Schreiber; Talia Harris; David Shaul; Sivaranjan Uppala; Gal Sapir; Naama Lev-Cohain; Jacob Sosna; Shraga Nahum Goldberg; J Moshe Gomori; Rachel Katz-Brull
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-05-05       Impact factor: 3.576

9.  Factors associated with readmissions in women participating in screening programs and treated for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Carme Miret; Laia Domingo; Javier Louro; Teresa Barata; Marisa Baré; Joana Ferrer; Maria Carmen Carmona-García; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Mammographic density parameters and breast cancer tumor characteristics among postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Héctor A Velásquez García; Carolyn C Gotay; Christine M Wilson; Caroline A Lohrisch; Agnes S Lai; Kristan J Aronson; John J Spinelli
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2019-08-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.