Literature DB >> 7741862

Aggressiveness of screen-detected breast cancers.

M Hakama1, K Holli, J Isola, O P Kallioniemi, A Kärkkäinen, T Visakorpi, E Pukkala, I Saarenmaa, U Geiger, J Ikkala.   

Abstract

It is not clear whether screening for breast cancer works as public health policy and whether early indicators of effect predict an ultimate reduction in mortality. The malignant potentials of 248 breast cancers detected by the screening service in Finland were compared with those of 490 control cancers diagnosed before the screening service was established. Aggressiveness was assessed by DNA flow cytometry and clinical status by cancer size and node involvement. After the first screening round, the results of DNA flow cytometry were the same in cancers diagnosed by screening and in controls; these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the biological aggressiveness of breast cancer remains constant as the cancer progresses. The proportion of patients with node-negative and small T1 cancers after the first screening was higher among the screened population than among controls, indicating earliness of diagnosis among those screened. Cancers diagnosed in the first round had a low malignant potential, as indicated by the DNA flow-cytometry and by clinical stage. Lower aggressiveness of cancers found by screening than of control cancers would indicate overdiagnosis or length-biased sampling, but not earliness of diagnosis. Screening with mammography is practised as a public-health policy in Finland. The results predict that the mortality reduction found in randomised trials can be repeated with a screening service.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7741862     DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90223-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  9 in total

Review 1.  Is clinical breast examination an acceptable alternative to mammographic screening?

Authors:  I Mittra; M Baum; H Thornton; J Houghton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-28

2.  Non-heart beating lung donation: aspects for the future.

Authors:  P A Corris
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 3.  A nodal positivity constant: new perspectives in lymph node evaluation and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Niamh M Hogan; Desmond C Winter
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  A Bayesian Simulation Model for Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, Treatment, and Mortality.

Authors:  Xuelin Huang; Yisheng Li; Juhee Song; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Screening for breast cancer. Recommendations are costly and short sighted.

Authors:  H Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

7.  Copy number imbalances between screen- and symptom-detected breast cancers and impact on disease-free survival.

Authors:  A M Brewster; P Thompson; A A Sahin; K Do; M Edgerton; J L Murray; S Tsavachidis; R Zhou; Y Liu; L Zhang; G Mills; M Bondy
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2011-07-27

8.  Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991-2001.

Authors:  T J Anderson; C Davis; F E Alexander; H M Dobson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.