4.7 Article

Increasing Rates of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 1362-1367

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.1681

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Some women with unilateral ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to prevent cancer in the opposite breast. The use and trends of CPM for DCIS in the United States have not previously been reported. Methods We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to analyze the initial treatment (within 6 months) of patients with unilateral DCIS diagnosed from 1998 through 2005. We determined the CPM rate as a proportion of all surgically treated patients and as a proportion of all patients who underwent mastectomy. We compared demographic and tumor variables in women with unilateral DCIS who underwent surgical treatment. Results We identified 51,030 patients with DCIS; 2,072 patients chose CPM. The CPM rate was 4.1% for all surgically treated patients and 13.5% for patients undergoing mastectomy. Among all surgically treated patients (including breast-conserving surgery), the CPM rate increased by 148% from 1998 (2.1%) to 2005 (5.2%). Among patients who underwent mastectomy to treat DCIS (excluding patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery), the CPM rate increased by 188% from 1998 (6.4%) to 2005 (18.4%). Young patient age, white race, recent year of diagnosis, and the presence of lobular carcinoma in situ were significantly associated with higher CPM rates among all surgically treated patients and all patients undergoing mastectomy. Large tumor size and higher grade were significantly associated with increased CPM rates among all surgically treated patients but lower CPM rates among patients undergoing mastectomy. Conclusion The use of CPM for DCIS in the United States markedly increased from 1998 through 2005.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据