Literature DB >> 9703287

The growth law of primary breast cancer as inferred from mammography screening trials data.

D Hart1, E Shochat, Z Agur.   

Abstract

Despite considerable progress in understanding tumour development, the law of growth for human tumours is still a matter of some dispute. In this study, we used large-scale mammography screening trial data to deduce the growth law of primary breast cancer. We compared the empirical tumour population size distributions of primary breast cancer inferred from these data to the distributions that correspond to various possible theoretical growth functions. From this, we showed that the data are inconsistent with the exponential, logistic and Gompertz laws, but support power law growth (exponent approximately 0.5). This law indicates unbounded growth but with slowing mass-specific growth rate and doubling time. In the clinical size ranges, it implies a greater decline in the mass-specific growth rate than would be predicted by the Gompertz law using the accepted parameters. This suggests that large tumours would be less sensitive to cycle-specific therapies, and be better treated first by non-cell cycle-specific agents. We discussed the use of our study to estimate the sensitivity of mammography for the detection of small tumours. For example, we estimated that mammography is about 30% less sensitive in the detection of tumours in the 1 to 1.5-cm range than it is in detecting larger tumours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9703287      PMCID: PMC2063020          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1998.503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  31 in total

1.  Predicting the course of Gompertzian growth.

Authors:  L Norton; R Simon; H D Brereton; A E Bogden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976-12-09       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  The Norton-Simon hypothesis revisited.

Authors:  L Norton; R Simon
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1986-01

3.  A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth.

Authors:  L Norton
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-12-15       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Thymidine labeling index, flow cytometric S-phase measurement, and DNA index in human tumors. Comparisons and correlations.

Authors:  J S Meyer; M D Coplin
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Effects of repeated mammographic screening on breast cancer stage distribution. Results from a randomised study of 92 934 women in a Swedish county.

Authors:  G Fagerberg; L Baldetorp; O Gröntoft; B Lundström; J C Månson; B Nordenskjöld
Journal:  Acta Radiol Oncol       Date:  1985 Nov-Dec

6.  High-dose chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer: the end of the beginning?

Authors:  J Crown
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  The British Columbia Mammography Screening Program: evaluation of the first 15 months.

Authors:  L J Burhenne; T G Hislop; H J Burhenne
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results.

Authors:  G Bonadonna; M Zambetti; P Valagussa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-15       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Nonparametric estimation of the size-metastasis relationship in solid cancers.

Authors:  M Kimmel; B J Flehinger
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; W Black; R Harris; B K Rimer; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  43 in total

1.  A delay differential equation model for tumor growth.

Authors:  Minaya Villasana; Ami Radunskaya
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 2.259

2.  Dynamics of targeted cancer therapy.

Authors:  Ivana Bozic; Benjamin Allen; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 11.951

3.  Parameter non-identifiability of the Gyllenberg-Webb ODE model.

Authors:  Niklas Hartung
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.259

4.  Bridging population and tissue scale tumor dynamics: a new paradigm for understanding differences in tumor growth and metastatic disease.

Authors:  Sylvia Plevritis; Alexander R A Anderson; Jill Gallaher; Aravind Babu
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Cellular interactions constrain tumor growth.

Authors:  Jeffrey West; Paul K Newton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  The dynamics of drug resistance: a mathematical perspective.

Authors:  Orit Lavi; Michael M Gottesman; Doron Levy
Journal:  Drug Resist Updat       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 18.500

7.  Estimating Tumor Growth Rates In Vivo.

Authors:  Anne Talkington; Rick Durrett
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.758

8.  Brain Metastases: Insights from Statistical Modeling of Size Distribution.

Authors:  M Buller; K M Chapple; C R Bird
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Growth curve analysis of asymptomatic and symptomatic meningiomas.

Authors:  Satoshi Nakasu; Yoko Nakasu; Tadateru Fukami; Junya Jito; Kazuhiko Nozaki
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  Translational pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling from nonclinical to clinical development: a case study of anticancer drug, crizotinib.

Authors:  Shinji Yamazaki
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 4.009

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.