4.2 Article

Age as a prognostic factor in early breast cancer

期刊

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 311-317

出版社

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102009005000009

关键词

Women; Breast Neoplasms; Age of Onset; Age Effect; Early Diagnosis; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To analyze age as a prognostic factor in early breast cancer. METHODS: Retrospective study analyzing the clinical profile and disease-free survival in a group of 280 subjects aged 25 to 81 years with stage I and II breast cancer followed-up in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, from 1995 to 2000. Clinical, pathological, treatment and outcome data were obtained from medical records. Subjects were divided into two groups according to age at diagnosis (<= 40 years and > 40 years). The two groups were compared for clinical stage, histology, hormone receptor expression, therapy and radiotherapy using the chi-square and/or Fisher's exact test and for analysis of survival the Kaplan-Meier method with a long-rank test. RESULTS: Of 280 women studied, 54 (19.3%) were younger than 40 years. Both groups were similar regarding clinical stage, histology, and hormone receptor expression. The proportion of subjects with disease-free survival in the 56-month follow-up was significantly higher in those over 40 years (84% versus 70%). Proportionally, younger subjects received more adjuvant therapy (88.8% vs. 77.8%). Those women over 40 years were significantly more likely to remain disease-free (84%), and this difference was more remarkable when they were compared to those over 40 years at stage I breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings confirm that women younger than 40 years with early breast cancer have a poorer prognosis. However, this prognosis does not seem to be related to increased number of hormone receptor-negative cases. Younger patients who remained disease-free received more adjuvant therapy, suggesting a positive effect of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy.

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

4.2
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