广州市乳腺癌机会性筛查与团体性筛查结果的比较

目的比较广州市地区机会性筛查与团体性筛查的人群分布,探索影响检查结果阳性的因素。方法机会性筛查的研究对象选取2015年1月~2015年12月来中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院乳腺肿瘤中心就诊的病人,且既往未诊断过乳腺疾病。团体性筛查的研究对象选取同年1月~12月参加我院乳腺肿瘤医学部诊断科开展的广州市女职工(含退休)乳腺癌筛查项目的女性。采用调查问卷的形式,对研究对象采用自填式问卷的方式进行调查。比较两组筛查人群的基本特征,探索影响检查结果阳性的因素。结果研究显示机会性筛查组年龄较团体性筛查组小,初潮年龄较大,哺乳时间较长,初产年龄较年轻,流产次数较多,生育次数也较多。机会性筛查组影像学检查阳性率、活检率均高于团体性筛查组。影响筛查检查阳性结果的独立危险因素是机会性筛查的方式和初潮年龄大于12岁。团体性筛查组确诊的乳腺癌中早期的比例更高。结论团体性筛查组人群分布特征与机会性筛查组不同,检查结果阳性率更高,活检率低于机会性筛查组,但是活检阳性率较高。     

45岁以上女性乳腺癌数字化X线成像筛查结果的分析

女性乳腺癌可通过人群筛查获得早期诊断，从而提高患者生存质量并明显降低死亡率。筛查的主要手段是乳腺检查及乳腺X线成像检查。在欧美定期的乳腺X线成像筛查已获得了广泛的肯定，国内近年也开始重视对乳腺癌的筛查工作。本研究报道了一个特定小样本人群的乳腺癌X线筛查结果，希望对国内开展这方面工作提供一些初步的经验。     

2016-2018年湖南省农村妇女乳腺癌筛查结果分析

背景与目的:乳腺癌是妇女常见的恶性肿瘤之一,发病呈上升趋势,病死率居女性各类恶性肿瘤的病死率之首,乳腺癌疾病负担不断上升,早期检测非常重要,但是我国乳腺癌筛查工作起步较晚,对各种筛查方法的检测效果报道不一.因此,本研究利用湖南省农村35～64岁适龄妇女"两癌"免费筛查项目数据,旨在分析我省农村妇女乳腺癌筛查效果.方法:...     

国外对于乳腺癌钼靶筛查的不同评价

乳腺癌钼靶筛查在欧美国家开展较早,笔者将近年国外对钼靶筛查的评价标准、意义等问题的再认识进行综述。     

中国汉族女性家族性和散发性乳腺癌患者家系中其他肿瘤的比较

目的 研究中国汉族女性家族性乳腺癌和散发性乳腺癌患者家系中其他非乳腺癌肿瘤的分布特点.方法 回顾性分析北京肿瘤医院乳腺中心2003年10月-2011年2月收治的4847例汉族原发性乳腺癌患者的临床资料,其中散发性乳腺癌4382例,家族性乳腺癌465例,比较两组间其他肿瘤的分布情况.结果 家族性乳腺癌家系中发生其他肿瘤的比例显著高于散发性乳腺癌(家族性乳腺癌vs散发性乳腺癌,29.7％vs20.8％,P＜0.001),家族性乳腺癌中其他肿瘤的家系总体发生风险是散发性乳腺癌的1.61倍;进一步分析发现,胰腺癌、前列腺癌及肾癌在家族性乳腺癌家系中发生比例均显著高于散发性乳腺癌(胰腺癌:2.2％vs0.8％,P=0.002;前列腺癌:1.5％vs0.3％,P＜0.001;肾癌:1.1％vs0.4％,P=0.03),家族性乳腺癌中有胰腺癌、前列腺癌和肾癌家系的发生风险分别是散发性乳腺癌家系的2.90、6.07和2.97倍.结论 在中国汉族女性乳腺癌患者中,与散发性乳腺癌患者比较,家族性乳腺癌患者家系中发生其他肿瘤的风险相对较高,尤其是胰腺癌、前列腺癌和肾癌.     

基层医院乳腺癌筛查模式的研究

目的探讨基层医院乳腺癌筛查的优化模式。方法对1998年1月至2006年12月新会地区的47976名妇女进行乳腺保健教育实施的乳腺临床检查加乳腺B超检查的乳腺癌筛查模式进行分析和总结。结果47976名妇女中筛查出乳腺异常情况者12694人,其中1126人接受手术活检或空心针穿刺活检,确诊为乳腺良性病变1069例,占94.1%,确诊为乳腺癌57例,占5.1%,其中非浸润性癌7例（均为T0期）,包括有小叶原位癌3例,导管内癌4例;浸润性癌50例,其中T1期是16例。本组乳腺癌筛查的乳腺癌检出率为0.12%。结论临床乳腺检查加乳腺B超检查的乳腺癌筛查模式能提高基层医院的乳腺癌早期诊断水平,有一定的临床推广价值。     

桂林市11 167名妇女乳腺癌筛查结果分析

目的:调查桂林市城区35～69岁妇女乳腺癌的发病情况。方法:采用临床乳腺检查初筛、选择性彩色超声、选择性乳腺钼靶X线摄片以及病理切片检查,对桂林市城区35～69岁11 167例妇女进行乳腺癌筛查。结果:共检出乳腺癌7例,检出率为62.68/10万。其中60～69岁年龄段的乳腺癌检出率为322.23/10万,50～54岁者为57.87/10万,40～44岁者为41.46/10万,35～39岁者为76.80/10万,45～49岁与55～59岁年龄段未检出乳腺癌。结论:桂林市城区妇女乳腺癌患病率较高。该筛查模式对于无肿块型乳腺癌有可能造成漏检。对我国乳腺癌筛查合适的模式还需要探索,建议重点探索基于B超检查的筛查模式。     

难以扪及肿块的早期乳腺癌98例临床分析

目的：探讨难以扪及的早期乳腺癌的诊断与治疗。方法：对1992年2月～2005年10月收治的乳腺癌病例中，计有T0期98例，根据易感因素，结合彩超、钼靶、乳管造影、局部切除活检等法，进行诊断和治疗分析。结果：全组接受手术治疗并经病理组织学确定为Tis-TlbN0M0。的乳腺癌，多数为非浸润性或早期浸润性癌（84．6％）。全组的疗效佳，预后好。结论：重视T0期乳腺癌的临床某些细微变化及高危因素，不轻易放过常规检查中的每一可疑征象．是提高早期乳腺癌发现率的有效措施。     

年轻与老年女性乳腺癌的临床病理比较分析

目的:探讨年轻女性乳腺癌的临床病理特点,为年轻女性乳腺癌的诊治提供依据.方法:对病理组织学确诊的年轻(≤35岁)女性乳腺癌181例及老年(≥60岁)女性乳腺癌186例患者的临床病理资料进行回顾性比较分析.结果:年轻女性乳腺癌患者以31～35岁居多,发病部位左乳多于右乳,2组发病位置均以外上象限居多,多为单发,均以浸润性导管癌为主,年轻组患者的肿瘤大小、组织学分级、TNM分期及腋窝淋巴结转移均明显高于老年组(P<0.05).结论:年轻女性乳腺癌较老年女性乳腺癌侵袭性强,恶性度高.临床应加强对年轻女性乳腺癌的认识和早期诊断.     

结直肠癌早期诊断筛查的转化性研究

结直肠癌是我国常见的恶性肿瘤之一。近年来在子宫颈癌、食管癌、鼻咽癌与胃癌死亡率明显下降的同时,结直肠癌的发病率却明显上升。根据我国160个县市登记资料．结直肠癌位居癌症死亡的第5位。     

前列腺癌筛查患者的临床病理特点及其意义

目的 通过分析集团筛查和临床诊断发现的前列腺癌,探讨前列腺癌筛查的临床价值.方法 2000年1月至2008年1月共收治441例前列腺癌患者,分为两组,临床组为门诊收治的前列腺癌患者122例;筛查组为同期23 183名50岁以上男性人群筛查发现的前列腺癌患者319例(均住院治疗);对两组患者年龄、直肠指检阳性率、血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)、病理Gleason评分、分型及临床分期和治疗方法等进行比较.结果 筛查组直肠指检阳性率为42.0%,低于临床组的79.5%.筛查组中PSA>20.0 μg/L的比例低于临床组.筛查组的中度分化腺癌占61.8%,高于临床组的29.5%,而低分化腺癌则相反.筛查组低于T2的患者比例为56.1%,T3以上患者比例为43.9%;临床组低于T2的患者比例为25.4%,T3以上患者比例为74.6%.发生局部及远处转移患者,筛查组26.0%,临床组46.0%.临床组根治性前列腺切除术占9.8%;筛查组根治手术占18.2%.结论 人群中筛查前列腺癌可以发现早期局限无症状的前列腺癌.     

Clinical profile of breast cancer in Arab and Jewish women in the Jerusalem area

BACKGROUND: The clinical profile of breast cancer may vary among different ethnic groups living in the same country and therefore affect the yield of a breast cancer screening program. The present study attempts to better characterize the breast cancer clinical profile of Arab women compared with Jewish women in the greater Jerusalem area with a future aim of establishing a comprehensive and effective screening program for this population. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted and the following covariates were correlated with survival: ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (TNM) stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 312 women were operated on for breast cancer between 1994 and 1999; 51% were Ashkenazi Jews (AJ), 26% were Sephardic Jews (SJ), 21% were Palestinian Arabs (PA), and 2% patients did not fit into those ethnic groups. The mean age at diagnosis was 51.5 years for the PA group, 53.4 +/- 1.5 for the SJ group, and 55.9 years for the AJ group (P <0.03 PA versus AJ). The tumor size (mean +/- SEM) was 38.8 +/- 3.7 mm, 31.1 +/- 2.4 mm, and 24.5 +/- 1.6 mm for the PA, SJ, and AJ groups, respectively (P = 0.03 for PA versus SJ and P <0.001 for PA versus AJ). Five-year overall survival was 77 %, 72%, and 58% for the AJ, SJ, and PA groups, respectively (P = 0.02); and 5-year disease-free survival was 72%, 51%, and 50% for the AJ, SJ, and PA groups, respectively (P = 0.03, AJ versus SJ). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate younger age and larger primary tumor size for the Arab patients compared with the Jewish patients. These findings were associated with lower 5-year survival and disease-free survival of the Arab patients.     

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with breast cancer mammography screening: A simulation study with calibration to population-based data

ObjectivesThe magnitude of overdiagnosis of breast cancer associated with mammography screening remains controversial because of methodological issues. The objective of this study was to quantify overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with a population-based screening programme, taking into account lead time and uncertainty concerning baseline incidence of breast cancers.Material and methodsA simulation model was developed to replicate incidence and detection rates of breast cancer observed in the Isère Département, France. The parameters of the model were estimated using an approximate Bayesian computation method.ResultsFor women aged 50–74 years during the 2007–2010 period, overdiagnosis of non-progressive breast cancers accounted for 17.0% (95% credibility interval (CI): 2.5%–35.5%) of all in situ cancers diagnosed, 5.5% (95% CI: 0.8%–9.8%) of all invasive cancers diagnosed, and 20.3% (95% CI: 3.0%–38.9%) of in situ and 13.0% (95% CI: 2.2%–23.3%) of invasive screen detected breast cancers. The estimates of overdiagnosis due to competitive causes of death were 1.0% (95% CI: 0.2%–%1.7) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6%–1.7%) for all in situ and invasive cancers diagnosed, respectively, and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2%–2.0%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.4%–4.0%) of all in situ and invasive screen detected breast cancers, respectively.Among 1000 screen-detected cancers in 2010, 155 (95% CI: 27–284), 134 (95% CI: 10–242) and 140 (95% CI: 25–254) women underwent breast conserving surgery, lymph node dissection and radiation therapy for overdiagnosed cancers, respectively.ConclusionOur estimates of overdiagnosis should be balanced against the reduction of breast cancer mortality to assess the value of breast cancer screening programme.     

Differences in breast cancer risk after benign breast disease by type of screening diagnosis

IntroductionWe aimed to assess differences in breast cancer risk across benign breast disease diagnosed at prevalent or incident screens.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study with data from 629,087 women participating in a long-standing population-based breast cancer screening program in Spain. Each benign breast disease was classified as non-proliferative, proliferative without atypia, or proliferative with atypia, and whether it was diagnosed in a prevalent or incident screen. We used partly conditional Cox hazard regression to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios of the risk of breast cancer.ResultsCompared with women without benign breast disease, the risk of breast cancer was significantly higher (p-value = 0.005) in women with benign breast disease diagnosed in an incident screen (aHR, 2.67; 95%CI: 2.24–3.19) than in those with benign breast disease diagnosed in a prevalent screen (aHR, 1.87; 95%CI: 1.57–2.24). The highest risk was found in women with a proliferative benign breast disease with atypia (aHR, 4.35; 95%CI: 2.09–9.08, and 3.35; 95%CI: 1.51–7.40 for those diagnosed at incident and prevalent screens, respectively), while the lowest was found in women with non-proliferative benign breast disease (aHR, 2.39; 95%CI: 1.95–2.93, and 1.63; 95%CI: 1.32–2.02 for those diagnosed at incident and prevalent screens, respectively).ConclusionOur study showed that the risk of breast cancer conferred by a benign breast disease differed according to type of screen (prevalent or incident). To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the impact of the screening type on benign breast disease prognosis.     

Risk-based prostate cancer screening

Context

Widespread mass screening of prostate cancer (PCa) is not recommended because the balance between benefits and harms is still not well established. The achieved mortality reduction comes with considerable harm such as unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnoses, and overtreatment. Therefore, patient stratification with regard to PCa risk and aggressiveness is necessary to identify those men who are at risk and may actually benefit from early detection.

Objective

This review critically examines the current evidence regarding risk-based PCa screening.

Evidence acquisition

A search of the literature was performed using the Medline database. Further studies were selected based on manual searches of reference lists and review articles.

Evidence synthesis

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been shown to be the single most significant predictive factor for identifying men at increased risk of developing PCa. Especially in men with no additional risk factors, PSA alone provides an appropriate marker up to 30 yr into the future. After assessment of an early PSA test, the screening frequency may be determined based on individualized risk. A limited list of additional factors such as age, comorbidity, prostate volume, family history, ethnicity, and previous biopsy status have been identified to modify risk and are important for consideration in routine practice. In men with a known PSA, risk calculators may hold the promise of identifying those who are at increased risk of having PCa and are therefore candidates for biopsy.

Conclusions

PSA testing may serve as the foundation for a more risk-based assessment. However, the decision to undergo early PSA testing should be a shared one between the patient and his physician based on information balancing its advantages and disadvantages.     

Experiences,expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk

BackgroundSeveral studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial.MethodsA 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30–55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools.Results255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23–36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48–60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography).DiscussionMost women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women.     

Disease-specific survival of men with prostate cancer detected during the screening interval: results of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer-Rotterdam after 11 years of follow-up

Background

In a screening program, interval cancers are cancers diagnosed between two screening visits.

Objective

To assess the disease-specific survival (DSS) of men with prostate cancer (PCa) detected during the screening interval.

Design, setting, and participants

Within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer section Rotterdam, 42 376 men identified from population registries (55-74 yr of age) were randomized to a screening or control arm. The median follow-up was 11 yr.

Intervention

Men with prostate-specific antigen ≥3.0 ng/ml were recommended to undergo lateralized sextant biopsy. The screening interval was 4 yr.

Measurements

The disease-specific mortality of men with interval cancers was compared with that of men with PCa in the control arm; the secondary end point was overall mortality. An independent committee determined the causes of death.

Results and limitations

In the screening arm, 139 men were diagnosed with interval cancer of whom 8 died of the disease. In the control arm, the corresponding numbers were 1149 and 128, respectively. When comparing men with interval cancer to men with PCa in the control arm, no statistically significant difference in disease-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR]:1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-2.36; p = 0.77) and overall mortality (HR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38; p = 0.90) was found, adjusted for age, prognostic factors, and treatment modality. The follow-up is too limited to address the difference in DSS stratified for screening interval.

Conclusions

In the setting of population-based PCa screening at 4-yr intervals, the DSS of men with interval cancer seems to be similar to that of men with PCa in the control arm. Given that interval cancers contribute significantly to PCa mortality, further benefit in DSS in the screening arm may be achieved by decreasing the occurrence of interval cancer. However, the balance between mortality reduction and overdiagnosis should be preserved.

Trial registration

ISRCTN49127736.     

Influence of breast cancer opportunistic screening on aesthetic surgical outcome: A single‐center retrospective study in Switzerland

The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the surgical aesthetic outcome and breast cancer (BC) characteristics in patients with BC detected either by opportunistic screening or clinical diagnosis. 262 women undergoing surgery for BC between 2009 and 2012 were included. The following features were compared in the two groups of patients: (1) age at diagnosis; (2) family history of BC; (3) histology type; (4) tumor diameter; (5) local staging, and (6) type of surgical treatment. In 92/262 (35.1%) cases BC was detected by screening and 170/262 (64.9%) had clinical diagnosis. A positive family history and ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis were more frequent in patients with clinical diagnosis (P = .001 and P < .0001 respectively). Mean maximum diameter of invasive cancers was significantly greater in symptomatic patients (P < .001). Breast conserving surgery was performed in 76/92 (82.6%) patients with screening and 115/170 (67.6%) with clinical diagnosis. Mastectomy was performed in 16/92 (17.4%) patients with screening and 55/170 (32.3%) with clinical diagnosis. Mastectomy was more frequent in patients with clinical diagnosis of BC (P = .010). No significant group differences were found regarding the other features. This study demonstrated that in opportunistic screening, breast conserving surgery may be applied in a higher number of cases compared to patients presenting with clinical diagnosis, thereby improving life quality of these patients.