Angiosarcoma of the Breast After Wide Local Excision and Radiotherapy for Breast Carcinoma

Mills, T.D.; Vinnicombe, Sarah; Wells, Clive; Carpenter, R

doi:10.1053/crad.2001.0666

Cited by 26 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…FNA cannot be expected to provide definitive information about the histologic architecture of RIS nor can FNA provide adequate material for an immunohistochemical evaluation. Therefore, core needle or incisional biopsies are preferred: they provide accurate and satisfactory sampling [51, [99] 5c Case reports (n ϭ 2) Case report and literature review Velaj and DeLuca (1987) [4] 5c Radiographic review (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Olcina et al (2008) [11] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Chahin et al (2001) [14] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Pendlebury et al (1995) [17] 5c [78] 5c Case report (n ϭ 2) Case report and literature review Kunkel et al (2008) [57] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Quadros et al (2006) [80] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Kuten et al (1985) [87] 5c Case report (n ϭ 7) Case report and literature review Khan et al (2009) [88] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Plotti et al (2006) [91] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Brenin et al (1998) [86] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Feigenberg et al (2002) [100] 5c Case report (n ϭ 3) Case report and literature review Schulz et al (2000) [121] 5c Case report (n ϭ 3) Case report and literature review Givens et al (1999) [122] 5c Clinical review (n ϭ 85) Analysis of prognostic factors for RIS Okuno and Edmonson (1998) [113] 5c Case reports (n ϭ 2) Case report and literature review Mano et al (2006) [102] 5c Case report (n ϭ 1) Case report and literature review Perez-Ruiz et al (2009) …”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation-Induced Sarcoma of the Breast: A Systematic Review

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After completing this course, the reader will be able to:1. Evaluate the level of evidence to inform decision making for the treatment radiation induced sarcoma of the breast.2. Explain diagnostic criteria for radiation-induced sarcoma.3. Describe the effectiveness of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy for radiation induced sarcoma of the breast.This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com. CME CME ABSTRACTIntroduction. Radiation-induced sarcoma (RIS) is a rare, aggressive malignancy. Breast cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy constitute a large fraction of RIS patients. To evaluate evidenced-based practices for RIS treatment, we performed a systematic review of the published English-language literature. Methods. We performed a systematic keyword search of PubMed for original research articles pertaining to RIS of the breast. We classified and evaluated the articles based on hierarchal levels of scientific evidence.Results. We identified 124 original articles available for analysis, which included 1,831 patients. No randomized controlled trials involving RIS patients were found. We

show abstract

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation-Induced Sarcoma of the Breast: A Systematic Review

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bystander factors released from irradiated cells play critical roles in radiotherapy-associated secondary carcinogenesis [9]. These secondary cancers were observed in patients with cervical and breast cancer [10,11,12,13,14,15]; the reported latency is 5–15 years for cervical cancer patients receiving external bean radiation [16]. In a 7-year follow-up of 269,069 prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy, approximately 10% experienced secondary cancers [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microvesicles Contribute to the Bystander Effect of DNA Damage

Lin

Wei

Major

et al. 2017

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genotoxic treatments elicit DNA damage response (DDR) not only in cells that are directly exposed but also in cells that are not in the field of treatment (bystander cells), a phenomenon that is commonly referred to as the bystander effect (BE). However, mechanisms underlying the BE remain elusive. We report here that etoposide and ultraviolet (UV) exposure stimulate the production of microvesicles (MVs) in DU145 prostate cancer cells. MVs isolated from UV-treated DU145 and A431 epidermoid carcinoma cells as well as etoposide-treated DU145 cells induced phosphorylation of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) at serine 1981 (indicative of ATM activation) and phosphorylation of histone H2AX at serine 139 (γH2AX) in naïve DU145 cells. Importantly, neutralization of MVs derived from UV-treated cells with annexin V significantly reduced the MV-associated BE activities. Etoposide and UV are known to induce DDR primarily through the ATM and ATM- and Rad3-related (ATR) pathways, respectively. In this regard, MV is likely a common source for the DNA damage-induced bystander effect. However, pre-treatment of DU145 naïve cells with an ATM (KU55933) inhibitor does not affect the BE elicited by MVs isolated from etoposide-treated cells, indicating that the BE is induced upstream of ATM actions. Taken together, we provide evidence supporting that MVs are a source of the DNA damage-induced bystander effect.

show abstract

“…Over the past 20 years, breast‐conserving therapy has replaced modified radical mastectomy as the standard of care for patients with early‐stage breast carcinoma. Angiosarcoma arising in the irradiated breast after breast‐conserving therapy has been reported with increasing frequency over a similar time period 3–51. Although angiosarcoma after breast‐conserving therapy is uncommon (approximately 100 cases are reported in the literature), the incidence has increased as more women are treated with segmental mastectomy and radiotherapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Angiosarcoma after breast‐conserving therapy

Monroe

Feigenberg

Mendenhall

2003

Cancer

208

224

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Angiosarcoma arising in the irradiated breast after breast‐conserving therapy is being reported with increasing frequency. As more women undergo breast‐conserving therapy, the incidence can be expected to increase. Surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists will be faced with difficult management decisions for this aggressive disease. METHODS A comprehensive review of all English‐language reports of angiosarcomas after breast‐conserving therapy was performed. Approximately 100 cases were reviewed for treatment details and outcome analysis was performed. RESULTS Surgical excision is associated with very high rates of disease recurrence (55 of 75 patients with at least 1 year of follow‐up; 73%). Local disease recurrences in the tumor bed or along the mastectomy scar are a component of almost all recurrences (96%). Distant metastases develop simultaneously or shortly after local recurrences. Hyperfractionated radiotherapy has successfully prevented local disease recurrences in a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS Angiosarcoma after breast‐conserving therapy is increasingly diagnosed in a small but significant portion of breast carcinoma survivors. The aggressive nature of this disease demands further investigation of adjuvant therapy to prevent recurrence of disease after surgery. Cancer 2003;97:1832–40. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11277

show abstract

Angiosarcoma of the Breast After Wide Local Excision and Radiotherapy for Breast Carcinoma

Cited by 26 publications

References 10 publications

Radiation-Induced Sarcoma of the Breast: A Systematic Review

Radiation-Induced Sarcoma of the Breast: A Systematic Review

Microvesicles Contribute to the Bystander Effect of DNA Damage

Angiosarcoma after breast‐conserving therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About