The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival

Northridge, Mary E.; Rhoads, George G.; Wartenberg, Daniel; Koffman, Dawn

doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00366-6

Cited by 45 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As in previous population-based and clinical studies (Ruder et al, 1989;Northridge et al, 1997;Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, 1998;Li et al, 2003), tumour morphology and hormone receptor status are important predictors of breast cancer survival. The 5-year survival varied from 66% for NOS carcinoma to 95% for special type tumours, while patients with oestrogen-and progesterone-positive tumours had better survival (90%) than those negative for both receptors (73%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…However, comedocarcinoma, other and NOS carcinoma were generally diagnosed at a more advanced stage than other morphologic categories, and their RERs decreased from 0.55 to 0.34, from 1.57 to 1.38 and from 1.16 to 1.08, respectively, after these adjustments (data not shown). The overall proportion of NOS carcinomas was 7%, compared to 5% in the US SEER populations (Northridge et al, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Population-based studies on the SEER database, which analysed the relative risk of breast cancer death according to tumour morphology, did not estimate survival in this way. One of these (Li et al, 2003) did not control for competing causes of death; the other (Northridge et al, 1997) used cause-specific survival to control for competing causes of death. It is also important to note that only summary information on stage was available in these studies (categories: localised disease, regional metastasis, distant metastasis and unstaged) and the models did not adjust for hormone receptor status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tumour morphology and hormone receptor status are established predictors of breast cancer survival (Ruder et al, 1989;Northridge et al, 1997;Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, 1998;Li et al, 2003). Detailed stage information is seldom available in population-based studies and few have assessed the influence of both these groups of predictors on prognosis using appropriate statistical methods (Northridge et al, 1997;Li et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detailed stage information is seldom available in population-based studies and few have assessed the influence of both these groups of predictors on prognosis using appropriate statistical methods (Northridge et al, 1997;Li et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prognostic value of morphology and hormone receptor status in breast cancer – a population-based study

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analysed the 5-year relative survival among 4473 breast cancer cases diagnosed in 1990 -1992 from cancer registries in Estonia, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK. Among eight categories based on ICD-O codes (infiltrating ductal carcinoma, lobular plus mixed carcinoma, comedocarcinoma, 'special types', medullary carcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS) carcinoma, other carcinoma and cancer without microscopic confirmation), the 5-year relative survival ranged from 66% (95% CI 61 -71) for NOS carcinoma to 95% (95% CI 90 -100) for special types (tubular, apocrine, cribriform, papillary, mucinous and signet ring cell); 27% (95% CI 18 -36) for cases without microscopic confirmation. Differences in 5-year relative survival by tumor morphology and hormone receptor status were modelled using a multiple regression approach based on generalised linear models. Morphology and hormone receptor status were confirmed as significant survival predictors in this population-based study, even after adjusting for age and stage at diagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prognostic value of morphology and hormone receptor status in breast cancer – a population-based study

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A hypothesis about Spiegelet al.'s 1989 paper on psychosocial intervention and breast cancer survival

Fox¹

1998

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncommon breast tumors in perspective: Incidence, treatment and survival in the Netherlands

Louwman¹,

Vriezen²,

Beek³

et al. 2007

Intl Journal of Cancer

118

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relatively small group of patients with breast tumors other than the ductal, lobular or mixed ducto-lobular types, has reached nonnegligible numbers due to the ongoing increase in the incidence of breast cancer. We investigated stage and grade distribution of uncommon breast tumors using the nation-wide Netherlands Cancer Registry (population 16.5 million) and incidence patterns, treatment and long-term survival (up to 19 years) using the regional Eindhoven Cancer Registry (population 2.4 million). Incidence of all uncommon breast tumors together was 9.2/100,000 person years (age-standardized, ESR). The proportion of stage I tumors was 70% among patients with tubular (n 5 3,456) and 40-50% for mucinous (n 5 3,482), papillary (n 5 1,078), cribriform (n 5 503) and neuroendocrine (n 5 76) tumors, contrasting to 27, 28 and 36%, respectively among patients with Signet ring cell cancer (n 5 75), Paget's disease (n 5 818) and the common invasive ductal carcinomas (n 5 121,656). A better age-, stage-, and gradeadjusted prognosis was observed for patients with lobular (death risk ratio 0.8, 95%CI: 0.7-0.9), mucinous (0.5, 0.3-0.9), medullary (0.5, 0.3-0.9) and tubular (0.4, 0.2-0.6) carcinoma or phyllodes tumor (0.02, 0.0-0.2), compared with invasive ductal carcinomas. For patients with papillary (0.6, 0.2-1.6) and cribriform (0.1, 0.0-5.1) tumors better prognosis was not statistically significant. In conclusion, histologic type was an essential determinant of survival for about 10% of all newly diagnosed women with invasive breast cancer. Because patients with mucinous, tubular, medullary and phyllodes tumors have such a good prognosis, less aggressive treatment should be considered in some cases whereby specific guidelines are becoming increasingly desirable. Communication to patients with these specific histological types should reflect this. ' 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

Prognostic value of morphology and hormone receptor status in breast cancer – a population-based study

Prognostic value of morphology and hormone receptor status in breast cancer – a population-based study

A hypothesis about Spiegelet al.'s 1989 paper on psychosocial intervention and breast cancer survival

Uncommon breast tumors in perspective: Incidence, treatment and survival in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About