Raja M A, Hubbard A, Salman A R
Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex, UK.
Breast. 2001 Apr;10(2):100-8. doi: 10.1054/brst.2000.0217.
We have compared tumour type, tumour size, tumour grade and axillary lymph node status in three groups of women, 230 interval breast cancers (IC) in the West Sussex Breast Screening programme and 625 screen detected (SD) cancers and 916 symptomatic (S) cancers treated at Worthing Hospital between July 1989 to April 1996. Our true interval cancer detection rates were 5.28, 11.28 and 15.3 per 10,000 screened women for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year after screening. The proportionate incidences of true interval cancer were 29%, 61% and 82% for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year, similar to others' programmes in UK. In our programme a large proportion (42%) of IC and more than half of the true IC presented in the 3rd year after screening. Out of 230 interval cancers, 40% (90) were unclassifiable, the remaining 60% (140) were classified as: True interval cancers (T) 54% (76), False Negative Subtle (FNS) 12% (16), Occult (O) 12% (17), and 22% (31) as False Negative (FN). Analysis of interval cancers according to their classification did not demonstrate any significant difference with respect to tumour size (chi2 5.59, df 4, P=0.22), tumour grade (chi2 5.29, df 4, P=0.25) and axillary node status (chi2 3.16, df 4, P=0.53) thus establishing interval cancers as a single group. Invasive ductal carcinoma of no specific type was the main tumour type in all three groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences in size between the groups (df 2, F=71.36, p<0.0001). Symptomatic cancers were 1.19 times the size of IC while SD were 0.83 times the size of IC. The difference in groups in terms of tumour grade was significant (Kruskal-Wallis test chi2 33.31, df 2, P<0.0001). The incidence of grade 2 tumours was similar in the three groups while a third of the IC and S were grade 3 tumours. Comparison of axillary node status showed a significant difference between the three groups (chi2 26.59, df 2, P<0.0001). When means and 75th percentiles were compared IC had the greatest number of positive nodes while SD had the smallest number of positive nodes. Interval cancers are the middle spectrum between symptomatic and screen detected breast cancers and represent small cancers (<10 mm) not detected at the time of screening and de novo cancers developing in the screening interval. The need for improving the sensitivity of current screening methods and identifying newer methods of breast cancer detection is highlighted by our study.
我们比较了三组女性的肿瘤类型、肿瘤大小、肿瘤分级和腋窝淋巴结状态,这三组分别是:西苏塞克斯郡乳腺癌筛查项目中的230例间期乳腺癌(IC)患者,以及1989年7月至1996年4月期间在沃辛医院接受治疗的625例筛查发现(SD)的癌症患者和916例有症状(S)的癌症患者。我们真正的间期癌症检出率在筛查后的第1年、第2年和第3年分别为每10000名筛查女性中有5.28例、11.28例和15.3例。真正间期癌症的比例在第1年、第2年和第3年分别为29%、61%和82%,与英国其他项目相似。在我们的项目中,很大一部分(42%)的间期癌症以及超过一半的真正间期癌症出现在筛查后的第3年。在230例间期癌症中,40%(90例)无法分类,其余60%(140例)分类如下:真正间期癌症(T)54%(76例),假阴性微小癌(FNS)12%(16例),隐匿癌(O)12%(17例),假阴性(FN)22%(31例)。根据间期癌症的分类进行分析,在肿瘤大小(卡方值5.59,自由度4,P = 0.22)、肿瘤分级(卡方值5.29,自由度4,P = 0.25)和腋窝淋巴结状态(卡方值3.16,自由度4,P = 0.53)方面均未显示出任何显著差异,从而将间期癌症确定为一个单一的组。所有三组中,无特殊类型的浸润性导管癌是主要的肿瘤类型。方差分析(ANOVA)显示三组之间在大小上存在显著差异(自由度2,F = 71.36,p < 0.0001)。有症状的癌症大小是间期癌症的1.19倍,而筛查发现的癌症大小是间期癌症的0.