Adverse surgical outcomes in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 50, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1880-1890

  Thomas, Jeremy ^a   Hanby, Andrew ^b   Pinder, Sarah E ^c   Ball, Graham ^d   Lawrence, Gill ^e   Maxwell, Anthony ^f   Wallis, Matthew ^g   Evans, Andrew ^h   Dobson, Hilary ⁱ   Clements, Karen ^e   Thompson, Alastair ^j  

^a WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^f MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^g CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ West of Scotland Breast Screening Service   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Breast screening; DCIS; Outcomes; Pathology; Practice variation; Radiology

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURGERY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL AUDIT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BREAST SCREENING; DCIS; OUTCOMES; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE VARIATION; RADIOLOGY;

AGED; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84902260338     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: 18790852     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.023     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review Lancet 380 2012 1778 1786 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0
2. The Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening The benefits and harms of breast screening October 2012 Cancer Research UK and The Department of Health (England)
3. The Sloane Project - specimen handling protocols and reporting guidelines. < http://www.sloaneproject.co.uk/ > [accessed on 13 Mar 2014].
4. N. Bijker, J.L. Peterse, L. Duchateau, J.-P. Julien, I.S. Fentiman, and C. Duval et al. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853 J Clin Oncol 19 2001 2263 2271
5. S.E. Pinder, C. Duggan, I.O. Ellis, J. Cuzick, J.F. Forbes, and H. Bishop et al. A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial Br J Cancer 103 2010 94 100 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605718
6. I.L. Wapnir, J.J. Dignam, B. Fisher, E.P. Mamounas, S.J. Anderson, and T.B. Julian et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 103 6 2011 478 488 10.1093/jnci/djr027
7. J. Thomas, A. Evans, J. Macartney, S.E. Pinder, A. Hanby, and I. Ellis et al. Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project Br J Cancer 102 2010 285 293 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605513
8. J.M. Bland, and D.G. Altman Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two pairs of clinical measurement Lancet 1 1986 207 310
9. NHS Breast Screening Programme Annual Review 2012. Sheffield: NHS Breast Screening Publications. ISBN 978-1-84463-093-6. < http://www.cancerscreening. nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp-annualreview2012.pdf > [accessed 31/12/2013].
10. L.J.M. Caldon, K.A. Collins, and D.J. Wilde et al. Why do hospital mastectomy rates vary? Differences in the decision-making experiences of women with breast cancer Br J Cancer 104 2011 1551 1557 10.1038/bjc.2011.141
11. J. Thomas, A. Hanby, S. Pinder, I. Ellis, J. Macartney, and K. Clements et al. Implications of inconsistent measurement of ER status in non-invasive breast cancer: a study of 1684 cases from the Sloane Project Breast J 14 2008 33 38 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00523
12. C. Marcotte-Bloch, E. Chamorey, F. Ettore, I. Raoust, B. Flipo, and C. Chapellier MRI for the size assessment of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a prospective study of 33 patients Eur J Radiol 77 3 2011 462 467 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.003
13. S.T. Steen, A.P. Chung, M.-S. Sim, and A.E. Giuliano Preoperative breast MRI in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ Breast J 18 2 2012 151 156 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01204.x