Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022
Prognosis of local invasive relapses after carcinoma in situ of the breast: a retrospective study from a population-based registry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kada Mohammed Samia, Dabakuyo Yonli Tienhan Sandrine, Desmoulins Isabelle, Manguem Kamga Ariane, Jankowski Clémentine, Padeano Marie-Martine, Loustalot Catherine, Costaz Hélène, Causeret Sylvain, Peignaux Karine, Rouffiac Magali, Coutant Charles, Arnould Laurent, Ladoire Sylvain
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The prognosis of local invasive recurrence (LIR) after prior carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the breast has not been widely studied and existing data are conflicting, especially considering the specific prognosis of this entity, compared to de novo invasive breast cancer (de novo IBC) and with LIR after primary IBC.
METHODS: We designed a retrospective study using data from the specialized Côte d'Or Breast and Gynecological cancer registry, between 1998 and 2015, to compare outcomes between 3 matched groups of patients with localized IBC: patients with LIR following CIS (CIS-LIR), patients with de novo IBC (de novo IBC), and patients with LIR following a first IBC (IBC-LIR). Distant relapse-free (D-RFS), overall survival (OS), clinical, and treatment features between the 3 groups were studied.
RESULTS: Among 8186 women initially diagnosed with IBC during our study period, we retrieved and matched 49 CIS-LIR to 49 IBC, and 46 IBC-LIR patients. At diagnosis, IBC/LIR in the 3 groups were mainly stage I, grade II, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2 negative. Metastatic diseases at diagnosis were higher in CIS-LIR group. A majority of patients received adjuvant systemic treatment, with no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of OS or D-RFS.
CONCLUSION: LIR after CIS does not appear to impact per se on survival of IBC.
METHODS: We designed a retrospective study using data from the specialized Côte d'Or Breast and Gynecological cancer registry, between 1998 and 2015, to compare outcomes between 3 matched groups of patients with localized IBC: patients with LIR following CIS (CIS-LIR), patients with de novo IBC (de novo IBC), and patients with LIR following a first IBC (IBC-LIR). Distant relapse-free (D-RFS), overall survival (OS), clinical, and treatment features between the 3 groups were studied.
RESULTS: Among 8186 women initially diagnosed with IBC during our study period, we retrieved and matched 49 CIS-LIR to 49 IBC, and 46 IBC-LIR patients. At diagnosis, IBC/LIR in the 3 groups were mainly stage I, grade II, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2 negative. Metastatic diseases at diagnosis were higher in CIS-LIR group. A majority of patients received adjuvant systemic treatment, with no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of OS or D-RFS.
CONCLUSION: LIR after CIS does not appear to impact per se on survival of IBC.