Literature DB >> 27491784

Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local-Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer.

Heather B Neuman1,2, Jessica R Schumacher3, Amanda B Francescatti4, Taiwo Adesoye3, Stephen B Edge5, Elizabeth S Burnside6, David J Vanness3,7,8, Menggang Yu9, Yajuan Si8, Dan McKellar10, David P Winchester11, Caprice C Greenberg3,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors.
METHODS: A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method.
RESULTS: Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. DISCUSSION: Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27491784      PMCID: PMC5015646          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5483-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  26 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Locoregional relapse after breast cancer: most relapses occur late and are not clinically detected.

Authors:  David A Montgomery; Katherine Krupa; Timothy G Cooke
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Oncologists' Perspectives of Their Roles and Responsibilities During Multi-disciplinary Breast Cancer Follow-Up.

Authors:  Heather B Neuman; Nicole M Steffens; Nora Jacobson; Amye Tevaarwerk; Bethany Anderson; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Hyman B Muss; Les Irwig
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Comparison of breast cancer recurrence and outcome patterns between patients treated from 1986 to 1992 and from 2004 to 2008.

Authors:  Rachel J D Cossetti; Scott K Tyldesley; Caroline H Speers; Yvonne Zheng; Karen A Gelmon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Detection of local recurrence following breast-conserving treatment in young women with early breast cancer: optimization of long-term follow-up strategies.

Authors:  Maurice J C van der Sangen; Sanne W M Scheepers; Philip M P Poortmans; Ernest J T Luiten; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2012-09-16       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 8.  Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

Authors:  James L Khatcheressian; Patricia Hurley; Elissa Bantug; Laura J Esserman; Eva Grunfeld; Francine Halberg; Alexander Hantel; N Lynn Henry; Hyman B Muss; Thomas J Smith; Victor G Vogel; Antonio C Wolff; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Patient demographic and tumor characteristics influencing oncologist follow-up frequency in older breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Heather B Neuman; Jennifer M Weiss; Deborah Schrag; Katie Ronk; Jeffrey Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Changing pattern of the detection of locoregional relapse in breast cancer: the Edinburgh experience.

Authors:  D A Montgomery; K Krupa; W J L Jack; G R Kerr; I H Kunkler; J Thomas; J M Dixon
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-05-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  Personalizing post-treatment cancer care: a cross-sectional survey of the needs and preferences of well survivors of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Y Y Kwan; J Croke; T Panzarella; K Ubhi; A Fyles; A Koch; R Dinniwell; W Levin; D McCready; C Chung; F Liu; J L Bender
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Use of Breast Imaging After Treatment for Locoregional Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

Authors:  Taiwo Adesoye; Jessica R Schumacher; Heather B Neuman; Stephen Edge; Daniel McKellar; David P Winchester; Amanda B Francescatti; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 5.344

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.