Alexandra Thomas1, Ronald J Weigel2, Charles F Lynch3, Philip M Spanheimer2, Elizabeth K Breitbach4, Mary C Schroeder5. 1. Division of Hematology, Oncology and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 4. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 5. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: mary-schroeder@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes for node negative microscopically invasive breast cancer (MIBC) have not been reported. METHODS: State Health Registry of Iowa data identified women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), MIBC, and stage I breast cancer excluding MIBC (stage 1BC). RESULTS: From 2000 to 2013, 1,706, 193, and 4,514 women were diagnosed with DCIS, MIBC, and stage 1BC, respectively. MIBC increased at an annual percentage change of 2.1 (P = .041). MIBC was more frequently human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive than stage 1BC (39.7% vs 9.6%, P < .001). Mastectomy was performed more frequently in MIBC than DCIS (40.9% vs 30.6%, P = .014) or stage 1BC (40.9% vs 33.8%, P = .119). Chemotherapy was given to 4.1% of women with MIBC. Survival for women with MIBC was intermediate between DCIS and stage 1BC. CONCLUSIONS: Management of MIBC is an increasingly frequent clinical scenario. Women with MIBC receive more aggressive local and systemic therapy than women with DCIS.
BACKGROUND: Recent incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes for node negative microscopically invasive breast cancer (MIBC) have not been reported. METHODS: State Health Registry of Iowa data identified women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), MIBC, and stage I breast cancer excluding MIBC (stage 1BC). RESULTS: From 2000 to 2013, 1,706, 193, and 4,514 women were diagnosed with DCIS, MIBC, and stage 1BC, respectively. MIBC increased at an annual percentage change of 2.1 (P = .041). MIBC was more frequently human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive than stage 1BC (39.7% vs 9.6%, P < .001). Mastectomy was performed more frequently in MIBC than DCIS (40.9% vs 30.6%, P = .014) or stage 1BC (40.9% vs 33.8%, P = .119). Chemotherapy was given to 4.1% of women with MIBC. Survival for women with MIBC was intermediate between DCIS and stage 1BC. CONCLUSIONS: Management of MIBC is an increasingly frequent clinical scenario. Women with MIBC receive more aggressive local and systemic therapy than women with DCIS.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Richard G Margolese; Reena S Cecchini; Thomas B Julian; Patricia A Ganz; Joseph P Costantino; Laura A Vallow; Kathy S Albain; Patrick W Whitworth; Mary E Cianfrocca; Adam M Brufsky; Howard M Gross; Gamini S Soori; Judith O Hopkins; Louis Fehrenbacher; Keren Sturtz; Timothy F Wozniak; Thomas E Seay; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M J Silverstein; J R Waisman; P Gamagami; E D Gierson; W J Colburn; R J Rosser; P S Gordon; B S Lewinsky; A Fingerhut Journal: Cancer Date: 1990-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cindy B Matsen; Allison Hirsch; Anne Eaton; Michelle Stempel; Alexandra Heerdt; Kimberly J Van Zee; Hiram S Cody; Monica Morrow; George Plitas Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Danielle N Margalit; Meera Sreedhara; Yu-Hui Chen; Paul J Catalano; Paul L Nguyen; Mehra Golshan; Beth A Overmoyer; Jay R Harris; Jane E Brock Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.344