Search

Few studies have reported the association between body mass index ( BMI) and outcome among Asian breast cancer patients. We analyzed data for 20,090 female invasive breast cancer patients who had been followed-up for a median period of 6.7 years entered in the National Clinical Database-Breast Cancer Registry between 2004 and 2006. We used mainly the WHO criteria for BMI (kg/m2) categories; <18.5 (underweight), ≥18.5-<21.8 (reference), ≥21.8-<25, ≥25-<30 (overweight), and ≥30 (obese). We divided normal weight patients into two subgroups because this category includes many patients compared to others. The timing of BMI measurement was not specified. The Cox proportional hazards model and cubic spline regression were used to estimate hazard ratios ( HRs) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs). Smoking, alcohol, and physical activity were not controlled. A total of 1418 all-cause, 937 breast cancer-specific deaths, and 2433 recurrences were observed. Obesity was associated with an increased risk of all-cause ( HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16-1.83) and breast cancer-specific death ( HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.11-1.93) for all patients, and with all-cause ( HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.13-1.92) and breast cancer-specific death ( HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.13-2.20) for postmenopausal patients. Being underweight was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death for all ( HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.16-1.71) and for postmenopausal patients ( HR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.15-1.84). With regard to subtype and menopausal status, obesity was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer-specific death for all cases of luminal B tumor ( HR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.51-4.43; Pheterogeneity of Luminal B vs. Triple negative = 0.016) and for postmenopausal patients with luminal B tumor ( HR: 3.24; 95% CI: 1.71-6.17). Being obese or underweight is associated with a higher risk of death among female breast cancer patients in Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) incidence has grown with the implementation of screening and its detection varies across International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) countries. The aim of this survey is to describe the management of screen-detected DCIS in ICSN countries and to evaluate the potential for treatment related morbidity. Methods We sought screen-detected DCIS data from the ICSN countries identified during 2004–2008. We adopted standardised data collection forms and analysis and explored DCIS diagnosis and treatment processes ranging from pre-operative diagnosis to type of surgery and radiotherapy. Results Twelve countries contributed data from a total of 15 screening programmes, all from Europe except the United States of America and Japan. Among women aged 50–69 years, 7,176,050 screening tests and 5324 screen-detected DCIS were reported. From 21% to 93% of DCIS had a pre-operative diagnosis (PO); 67–90% of DCIS received breast conservation surgery (BCS), and in 41–100% of the cases this was followed by radiotherapy; 6.4–59% received sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) only and 0.8–49% axillary dissection (ALND) with 0.6% (range by programmes 0–8.1%) being node positive. Among BCS patients 35% received SLNB only and 4.8% received ALND. Starting in 2006, PO and SLNB use increased while ALND remained stable. SLNB and ALND were associated with larger size and higher grade DCIS lesions. Conclusions Variation in DCIS management among screened women is wide and includes lymph node surgery beyond what is currently recommended. This indicates the presence of varying levels of overtreatment and the potential for its reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There is concern about detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in screening mammography. DCIS accounts for a substantial proportion of screen-detected lesions but its effect on breast cancer mortality is debated. The International Cancer Screening Network conducted a comparative analysis to determine variation in DCIS detection. Patients and Methods: Data were collected during 2004–2008 on number of screening examinations, detected breast cancers, DCIS cases and Globocan 2008 breast cancer incidence rates derived from national or regional cancer registers. We calculated screen-detection rates for breast cancers and DCIS. Results: Data were obtained from 15 screening settings in 12 countries; 7,176,050 screening examinations; 29,605 breast cancers and 5324 DCIS cases. The ratio between highest and lowest breast cancer incidence was 2.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.76–3.00); 2.97 (95% CI 2.51–3.51) for detection of breast cancer; and 3.49 (95% CI 2.70–4.51) for detection of DCIS. Conclusions: Considerable international variation was found in DCIS detection. This variation could not be fully explained by variation in incidence nor in breast cancer detection rates. It suggests the potential for wide discrepancies in management of DCIS resulting in overtreatment of indolent DCIS or undertreatment of potentially curable disease. Comprehensive cancer registration is needed to monitor DCIS detection. Efforts to understand discrepancies and standardise management may improve care. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]