Literature DB >> 29718790

Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography.

Janie M Lee1, Linn Abraham1, Diana L Lam1, Diana S M Buist1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Diana L Miglioretti1, Nehmat Houssami1, Constance D Lehman1, Louise M Henderson1, Rebecca A Hubbard1.   

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the current study was to characterize the risk of interval invasive second breast cancers within 5 years of primary breast cancer treatment. Methods We examined 65,084 surveillance mammograms from 18,366 women with a primary breast cancer diagnosis of unilateral ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I to III invasive breast carcinoma performed from 1996 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Interval invasive breast cancer was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral cancer diagnosed within 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Discrete-time survival models-adjusted for all covariates-were used to estimate the probability of interval invasive cancer, given the risk factors for each surveillance round, and aggregated across rounds to estimate the 5-year cumulative probability of interval invasive cancer. Results We observed 474 surveillance-detected cancers-334 invasive and 140 ductal carcinoma in situ-and 186 interval invasive cancers which yielded a cancer detection rate of 7.3 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.0) and an interval invasive cancer rate of 2.9 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.3). Median cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was 1.4% (interquartile range, 0.8% to 2.3%; 10th to 90th percentile range, 0.5% to 3.7%), and 15% of women had ≥ 3% 5-year interval invasive cancer risk. Cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was highest for women with estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-negative primary breast cancer (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 3.5%), interval cancer presentation at primary diagnosis (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 2.9%), and breast conservation without radiation (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 2.4%). Conclusion Risk of interval invasive second breast cancer varies across women and is influenced by characteristics that can be measured at initial diagnosis, treatment, and imaging. Risk prediction models that evaluate the risk of cancers not detected by surveillance mammography should be developed to inform discussions of tailored surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29718790      PMCID: PMC6036621          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  45 in total

1.  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

2.  Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Theodora M Ripping; Jessica Chubak; Mireille J M Broeders; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006.

Authors:  Hazel B Nichols; Amy Berrington de González; James V Lacey; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Feasibility study for collection of HER2 data by National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program central cancer registries.

Authors:  Marsha E Reichman; Sean Altekruse; Christopher I Li; Vivien W Chen; Dennis Deapen; Mary Potts; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Donna Morrell; Jennifer Hafterson; Amanda I Phipps; Linda C Harlan; Lynn G Ries; Brenda K Edwards
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Mammographic features of 455 invasive lobular carcinomas.

Authors:  M Le Gal; L Ollivier; B Asselain; M Meunier; M Laurent; P Vielh; S Neuenschwander
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy.

Authors:  Nariya Cho; Wonshik Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Min Sun Bae; Eun Sook Ko; Seok Jin Nam; Eun Young Chae; Jong Won Lee; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Byung Joo Song; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Seung Il Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Yunhee Choi; Hak Hee Kim; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 8.  Lobular breast cancer series: imaging.

Authors:  Karen Johnson; Deba Sarma; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Dolores Salas; Raquel Zubizarreta; Marisa Baré; Garbiñe Sarriugarte; Teresa Barata; Josefa Ibáñez; Jordi Blanch; Montserrat Puig-Vives; Ana Fernández; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Population-Attributable Risk Proportion of Clinical Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Natalie J Engmann; Marzieh K Golmakani; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more
  3 in total

1.  Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Laura Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Christoph I Lee; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Erin J A Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Jennifer Specht; Garth H Rauscher; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Janie M Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.532

2.  Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 29.146

3.  Optimal Screening in Breast Cancer Survivors With Dense Breasts on Mammography.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Janie M Lee; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 50.717

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.