Invasive Breast Cancer

Carlson, R. W.; Allred, D. Craig; Anderson, Benjamin O.; Burstein, Harold J.; Carter, W. Bradford; Edge, Stephen B.; Erban, John K.; Farrar, William B.; Forero, Andres; Giordano, Sharon H.; Goldstein, Lori J.; Gradishar, William J.; Hayes, Daniel F.; Hudis, Clifford A.; Ljung, Britt Marie; Mankoff, David A.; Marcom, P. Kelly; Mayer, Ingrid A.; McCormick, Beryl; Pierce, Lori J.; Reed, Elizabeth; Sachdev, Jasgit C.; Smith, Mary Lou; Somlo, George; Ward, John H.; Wolff, Antonio C.; Zellars, Richard C.

doi:10.6004/jnccn.2011.0016

Cited by 139 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 291 publications

(446 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…En la actualidad, el cáncer como enfermedad, reclama cada vez más preparación y mejor atención en la medida que el ambiente sanitario y socio económico cambia y la esperanza de vida se alarga. (1) En Colombia, la mortalidad por cáncer de mama muestra tendencia al incremento en la última década (2) . Para el año 2000, el cáncer de mama ocupó el tercer lugar como causa de muerte por cáncer entre mujeres, con 1 542 muertes registradas, después del cáncer de estómago y el de cuello uterino (2) .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

La no realización del autoexamen de mama en Tunja, Colombia

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Página 30 CLÍNICA La no realización del autoexamen de mama en Tunja, ColombiaNon realisation of breast self-examination in Tunja, Colombia *Ospina Díaz, JM., **Manrique Abril, FG., ***Veja, NA., ***Morales Pacheco, AL., ***Ariza R., NE. RESUMENObjetivo. Identificar factores socioculturales y psicosociales determinantes de no realización del auto examen de mamas (AEM) en mujeres residentes en Tunja, Colombia. Materiales y métodos. Un estudio anidado de casos y controles se llevó a cabo a partir de 218 casos y 225 controles. La muestra se seleccionó mediante muestreo aleatorio estratificado. Se evaluó sobre los factores socioculturales, el conocimiento y la práctica del AEM. Resultados. Edad promedio 32,9 años (SD=9,44); 58,7% con pareja estable; 42,4% trabaja; 25,6% secundaria incompleta; 23,5% fuma; 21,5% planifica con métodos hormonales; 10,6% tiene antecedentes familiares de carcinoma mamario; 10,2% asiste a programas de promoción y prevención; 7,2% antecedente de enfermedad mamaria. Los factores que se encontraron significativamente asociados con la no realización del AEM son: no haber recibido información (OR=14,08); no asistir a programas de prevención del cáncer de mamá (OR=9,21); bajo nivel de conocimientos sobre cáncer de mama (OR=8,96); no considerar importante AEM (OR=8,71); no contar con apoyo familiar (OR=3,18); no reconoce la lactancia como factor protector en cáncer de mama (OR=2,46); no realizar actividad física (OR=2,38); no haber terminado la secundaria (OR=1,94); no uso de anticoncepción (OR=2,27); no ha consultado sobre AEM (OR=1,97); régimen subsidiado o vinculado (OR=1,77); uso de métodos de planificación menor de 3 años (OR=1,94); no tener antecedente de aborto (OR=1,92); no trabajar (OR=1,47). Conclusión. Se encuentran factores de riesgo, susceptibles de intervención educativa, que podrían mejorar sustancialmente la cobertura de los programas de P y P y la adherencia a la práctica del AEM.

show abstract

Section: Introductionunclassified

La no realización del autoexamen de mama en Tunja, Colombia

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PSA and CA125 are commonly monitored in prostate and ovarian cancer patients who are free of disease, but there is little evidence that doing so improves outcomes, and indeed the results of a prospective randomized trial refute any benefit in the latter (Rustin et al, 2010). Widely accepted guidelines by NCCN and ASCO recommend against monthly circulating tumor marker assessment to detect occult recurrence in patients with breast cancer (Carlson et al, 2011;Harris et al, 2007;Khatcheressian et al, 2006). …”

Section: Potential Clinical Uses Of Biomarkersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer biomarkers

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CancerTumor marker A B S T R A C TBiomarkers have many potential applications in oncology, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, determination of prognosis, prediction of response to treatment, and monitoring of progression of disease. Because of the critical role that biomarkers play at all stages of disease, it is important that they undergo rigorous evaluation, including analytical validation, clinical validation, and assessment of clinical utility, prior to incorporation into routine clinical care. In this review we address key steps in the development of biomarkers, including ways to avoid introducing bias and guidelines to follow when reporting results of biomarker studies.ª 2012 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.With the tremendous increase in knowledge about the biology of cancer and the rapid changes in molecular technology that have occurred in the past decade, studies of biomarkers in cancer are published almost daily. Because of this overabundance of information, it is necessary for clinicians and scientists to have a thorough understanding of biomarkers and biomarker development so they can critically review the literature, in order to determine whether and in what setting a biomarker can and should be used for patient care, or whether additional evaluation is required before it can be incorporated into routine medical practice. What is a biomarker?According to the National Cancer Institute, a biomarker is "a biological molecule found in blood, other body fluids, or tissues that is a sign of a normal or abnormal process, or of a condition or disease,"(NCI) such as cancer. Biomarkers typically differentiate an affected patient from a person without the disease. The alterations can be due to a number of factors, including germline or somatic mutations, transcriptional changes, and posttranslational modifications. There is tremendous variety of biomarkers, which can include proteins (e.g., an enzyme or receptor), nucleic acids (e.g., a microRNA or other non-coding RNA), antibodies, and peptides, among other categories. A biomarker can also be a collection of alterations, such as gene expression, proteomic, and metabolomic signatures. BiomarkersAbbreviations: ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; IHC, immunohistochemistry; LOE, Level of Evidence; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network; NCI, National Cancer Institute; PSA, prostate specific antigen; TMUGS, Tumor Marker Utility Grading Scale.

show abstract

“…By the year 2000, the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on adjuvant therapy for BC recommended that adjuvant chemotherapy be considered for nearly all patients with tumors ≥1 cm (5). Indeed, adjuvant chemotherapy has been routinely used in oncology practice for almost all patients, with the exception of those with small, node-negative and well-differentiated cancers (6).…”

Section: Overview Of Adjuvant Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Second malignancies after breast cancer: The impact of adjuvant therapy

Dong

Chen

2014

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Second malignant neoplasms (SMNs) are potentially life-threatening late sequelae of the adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC). The increased risk of SMNs is associated with adjuvant chemotherapy (development of secondary acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome) and hormonal therapy (risk of uterine cancer secondary to tamoxifen treatment). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of SMNs associated with alkylating agents, topoisomerase-II inhibitors, granulocyte-stimulating factors and estrogen receptor modulators. Furthermore, analytical investigations have demonstrated that BC patients may be at an increased risk of leukemia following chemotherapy. In addition, correlations between an increased dose of hormonal therapy and solid tumor risk have been identified. Considering the ongoing alterations in the treatment of BC, with respect to lowering the daily as well as the cumulative dose of chemotherapeutic agents, it is anticipated that leukemias will have a considerably lower impact on BC survivors in the future. However, diligent follow-up is required to accurately evaluate the long-term risks associated with chemotherapy.

show abstract

Invasive Breast Cancer

Cited by 139 publications

References 291 publications

La no realización del autoexamen de mama en Tunja, Colombia

La no realización del autoexamen de mama en Tunja, Colombia

Cancer biomarkers

Second malignancies after breast cancer: The impact of adjuvant therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About