4.7 Article

Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: Analysis of European organization for research and treatment of cancer trial 10853

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 2263-2271

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.8.2263

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In view of the increasing number of patients treated with breast-conserving treatment (BCT) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (CCIS), risk factors for recurrence and metastasis should be identified. Patients and Methods: Clinical and pathologic characteristics from patients with DCIS in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10853 (excision with or without radiotherapy) were related to the risk of recurrence. Pathologic features were derived from a central review of 863 of the 1,010 randomized cases (85%). The median follow-up was 5.4 years. Results: Factors associated with an increased risk of local recurrence in the multivariate analysis were young age (less than or equal to 40 years) (hazard ratio, 2.14; P =.02), symptomatic detection of DCIS (hazard ratio, 1.80; P =.008), growth pattern (solid and cribriform) (hazard ratios, 2.67 and 2.69, respectively; P =.012), involved margins (hazard ratio, 2.07; P =.0008), and treatment by local excision alone (hazard ratio, 1.74; P =.009). The risk of invasive recurrence was not related to the histologic type of DCIS (P =.63), but the risk of distant metastasis was significantly higher in poorly differentiated DCIS compared with well-differentiated DCIS (hazard ratio, 6.57; P =.01). Conclusion: Patients with poorly differentiated DCIS have a high risk of distant metastasis after invasive local recurrence. Margin status is the most important factor in the success of BCT for DCIS; additionally, young age and symptomatic detection of CCIS have negative prognostic value. (C) 2001 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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