A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: A prospective study

Lancet

Volumn 355, Issue 9202, 2000, Pages 429-433

  Tabár, László ^a,b   Chen, Hsiu Hsi ^c   Duffy, Stephen W ^d   Yen, M F ^c   Chiang, C F ^c   Dean, Peter B ^e   Smith, Robert A ^f  

^a FALUN HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Taiwan University   (Taiwan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^f AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER INVASION; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 0034606870     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)82008-5     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. i:1985;829-832.
2. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 22:1997;87-92.
3. 16-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Lancet. 353:1999;1909-1914.
4. Tubiana M, Koscielny S. Natural history of human breast cancer: recent data and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 18:1991;125-140.
5. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer. 86:1999;449-462.
6. Joensuu H, Pylkkanen L, Toikkanen S. Late mortality from pT1N0M0 breast carcinoma. Cancer. 85:1999;2183-2189.
7. Tubiana M, Koscielny S. The rationale for early diagnosis of cancer: the example of breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 38:1999;295-303.
8. Lanyi M. Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of breast calcifications. 1988;Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
9. Tabar L, Gad A, Parsons W, Neeland DV. Mammographic appearances of in situ carcinomas. Silverstein MJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. 1997;95-117 Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
10. Hermann G, Keller RJ, Drossman S, et al. Mammographic pattern of microcalcifications in the preoperative diagnosis of comedo ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathologic correlation. Can Assoc Radiol J. 50:1999;235-240.
11. Hilleren DJ, Andersson IT, Lindholm K, Linnell FS. Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology. 178:1991;149-154.
12. Wilson TE, Helvie MA, Oberman HA, Joynt LK. Pure and mixed mucinous carcinoma of the breast: pathologic basis for differences in mammographic appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 165:1995;285-289.
13. Goodman DN, Boutross-Tadross O, Jong RA. Mammographic features of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast with pathological correlation. Can Assoc Radiol J. 46:1995;296-301.
14. Tabar L, Dean PB, Tot T. Radiology of minimal breast cancer. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. RSNA categorical course in breast imaging. 1999;9-18 Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, IL.
15. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 30:1992;187-210.
16. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer. 75:1995;2507-2517.
17. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE. The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. J Epidemiol Community Health. 43:1989;107-114.
18. Tabar L, Dean PB. Teaching atlas of mammography. 1983;Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart.
19. Mammography: breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADSTM). 1998;American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
20. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, et al. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ: frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer. 63:1989;619-624.
21. Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol. 11:1994;167-180.
22. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 345:1995;1154-1157.
23. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol. 11:1994;223-235.
24. Simpson JF, Page DL. The role of pathology in premalignancy and as a guide for treatment and prognosis in breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 23:1996;428-435.
25. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and C-erbB-2 oncogene expression: Nottingham Breast Team. Clin Radiol. 49:1994;559-562.
26. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Snead DR, Wilson AR, Ellis IO, Elston CW. The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ at mammographic screening enables the diagnosis of small, grade 3 invasive tumours. Br J Cancer. 75:1997;542-544.
27. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, et al. The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 340:1999;1455-1461.
28. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 335:1990;519-522.