2012 EDUCATIONAL BOOK - American Society of Clinical Oncology

OVERDIAGNOSIS AND OVERTREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER
mography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.
BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.
10. Welch HG, Frankel BA. Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected
breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med.
2011;171:2043-2046.
11. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2010;102:605-613.
12. Mook S, Van ‘t Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, et al. Independent prognostic value
of screen detection in invasive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:
585-597.
13. Lin C, Buxton MB, Moore D, et al. Locally advanced breast cancers are
more likely to present as interval cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL
(CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial). Breast Cancer Res
Treat. Epub 2011 Jul 28.
14. Allgood PC, Duffy SW, Kearins O, et al. Explaining the difference in
prognosis between screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Br J
Cancer. 2011;104:1680-1685.
15. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Berry D, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen
with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early
breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:971-977.
16. Esserman LJ, Mohan AJ, Park C, et al. Projecting the impact of
adopting trial results. Poster presented at: San Antonio Breast Care Symposium;
December 2011; San Antonio, TX.
17. Allred DC, Mohsin SK, Fuqua SA. Histological and biological evolution
of human premalignant breast disease. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2001;8:47-61.
18. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with
proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:146-151.
19. Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al. Estimates of overdiagnosis of
invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer
Causes Control. 2010;21:275-282.
20. Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, et al. The decrease in breastcancer
incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1670-
1674.
21. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, et al. Declines in invasive
breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening
mammography population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1335-1339.
22. Glass AG, Lacey JV Jr, Carreon JD, et al. Breast cancer incidence,
1980-2006: combined roles of menopausal hormone therapy, screening mammography,
and estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1152-
1161.
23. Welch HG. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why.
Berkeley: University of California Press; 2004.
24. Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J, et al. Characterizing the impact of 25
years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:165-173.
25. Mandelblatt J, Schechter CB, Lawrence W, et al. The SPECTRUM
population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast
cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model
methods. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):47-55.
26. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, et al. The Wisconsin Breast
Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;
(36):37-47.
27. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, et al. The natural history of
low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy
only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481-
2484.
28. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, et al. Mammographically
detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following
tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer.
1989;63:618-624.
29. Welch HG, Black WC. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease
“reservoir” for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast
cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:1023-1028.
30. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Choosing treatment for patients with
ductal carcinoma in situ: fine tuning the University of Southern California/
Van Nuys Prognostic Index. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010(41):193-
196.
31. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, et al. Characteristics associated
with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by
lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1692-1702.
32. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro AM, Gauthier ML, et al. Biomarker expression
and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ
diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:627-637.
33. King TA, Sakr RA, Muhsen S, et al. Is there a low-grade precursor
pathway in breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. Epub 2011 Sep 21.
34. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of
mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2002;94:369-375.
35. Meyerson AF, Lessing JN, Itakura K, et al. Outcome of long term active
surveillance for estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast.
2011;20:529-533.
36. Esserman L, Sepucha K, Ozanne EM, Hwang ES. Applying the neoadjuvant
paradigm to ductal carcinoma in situ. Annals of Surgical Oncology.
2004;11(1 Suppl):28S-36S.
37. Coopey SB, Mazzola E, Buckley JM, et al. Clarifying the risk of breast
cancer in women with atypical breast lesions. Paper presented at: San
Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 2011; San Antonio, TX.
38. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention
of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and
Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371-1388.
39. Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E, et al. Tamoxifen-induced reduction in
mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested casecontrol
study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:744-752.
40. Hubbard RA, Kerilkowske K, Flowers CI, et al. Cumulative probability
of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening
mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481-492.
41. Burnside E, Belkora J, Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices
on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clin
Breast Cancer. 2001;2:145-152.
42. Schousboe JT, Kerilkowske K, Loh A, et al. Personalizing mammography
by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of
health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:10-20.
e45