Literature DB >> 3311769

Detection method, tumour size and node metastases in breast cancers diagnosed during a trial of breast cancer screening.

L Tabar1, S W Duffy, U B Krusemo.   

Abstract

The relationship between tumour size and lymph node metastases was examined in screening-detected and clinically detected breast cancers. The data used were from a randomized trial of breast cancer screening with mammography. 964 cancers were reviewed, in both arms of the trial, in women aged 40-74. Lymph node status was significantly related to detection method (P less than 0.001), metastases being less common in screening-detected cancers. Node status was also significantly related to tumour size (P less than 0.001), metastases being commoner in larger tumours. Similarly, tumour size was significantly associated with detection method (P less than 0.001), smaller tumours being detected by screening. No significant interaction was observed among all three factors, indicating that the relationship between node status and tumour size did not change with detection method. When detection method was replaced with randomly allocated study (invited to screening) and control (not invited to screening) groups, the same results were observed. It is concluded that if screening detects tumours with a different natural history to that of those which surface clinically, this is not reflected in the relationship between tumour size and lymph node metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3311769     DOI: 10.1016/0277-5379(87)90341-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0277-5379


  11 in total

1.  Radical axillary dissection in the staging and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  M A Chaudary
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  PET/CT and breast cancer.

Authors:  Barbara Zangheri; Cristina Messa; Maria Picchio; Luigi Gianolli; Claudio Landoni; Ferruccio Fazio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-05-05       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Does increased detection account for the rising incidence of breast cancer?

Authors:  J M Liff; J F Sung; W H Chow; R S Greenberg; W D Flanders
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Role of mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer in an inner-city hospital.

Authors:  A P Ekeh; R S Alleyne; A O Duncan
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.798

5.  Breast cancer screening: its impact on clinical medicine.

Authors:  H J de Koning; G J van Oortmarssen; B M van Ineveld; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system.

Authors:  N E Day; D R Williams; K T Khaw
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Screen-detected vs clinical breast cancer: the advantage in the relative risk of lymph node metastases decreases with increasing tumour size.

Authors:  L Bucchi; A Barchielli; A Ravaioli; M Federico; V De Lisi; S Ferretti; E Paci; M Vettorazzi; S Patriarca; A Frigerio; E Buiatti
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-01-17       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04

9.  Breast screening, prognostic factors and survival--results from the Swedish two county study.

Authors:  S W Duffy; L Tabar; G Fagerberg; A Gad; O Gröntoft; M C South; N E Day
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Comparative pathology of breast cancer in a randomised trial of screening.

Authors:  T J Anderson; J Lamb; P Donnan; F E Alexander; A Huggins; B B Muir; A E Kirkpatrick; U Chetty; W Hepburn; A Smith
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.