Are small breast cancers good because they are small or small because they are good?

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 376, Issue 23, 2017, Pages 2286-2291

  Lannin, Donald R ^a,c   Wang, Shiyi ^b,c  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; AGE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER REGISTRY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH SERVICE; PATHOLOGY; TUMOR INVASION;

AGE FACTORS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL OVERUSE; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; SEER PROGRAM;

EID: 85020394852     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1613680     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1438-47.
2. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Research data, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2016, based on the November 2015 submission (https://seer.cancer.gov/).
3. Etzioni R, Xia J, Hubbard R, Weiss NS, Gulati R. A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:106.
4. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2005-14.
5. Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J, et al. A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1108-12.
6. Shen Y, Zelen M. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3490-9.
7. Duffy SW, Chen HH, Tabar L, Day NE. Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry to and exit from the preclinical detectable phase. Stat Med 1995;14:1531-43.
8. Hayse B, Hooley RJ, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. Breast cancer biology varies by method of detection and may contribute to overdiagnosis. Surgery 2016;160:454-62.
9. Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, et al. Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;144:103-11.
10. Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P, et al. Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res 2010;12:R92.
11. Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Gale T, Lakhani SR. The molecular genetics of breast cancer: the contribution of comparative genomic hybridization. Pathol Res Pract 2005;201:713-25.
12. Schymik B, Buerger H, Krämer A, et al. Is there 'progression through grade' in ductal invasive breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:693-703.
13. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al., eds. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer, 2017.