1996
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19960915)78:6<1220::aid-cncr8>3.0.co;2-d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Histopathology and growth rate of interval breast carcinoma: Characterization of different subgroups

Abstract: It is possible to separate interval breast cancers in true interval cases and cases (most likely) existent at the time of screening. Part of this last group is invisible by mammography (masked).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
19
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
3
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Interval cancers are a heterogeneous group comprised of those in which recognizable signs of tumor existed at the time of screening but were ''missed'' for technical or interpretive reasons and those that were not mammographically detectable at screening (8). Missed intervals caused by interpretive errors result from oversight on the part of the radiologist or misinterpretation of nonspecific mammographic signs of malignancy (3,6,9).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interval cancers are a heterogeneous group comprised of those in which recognizable signs of tumor existed at the time of screening but were ''missed'' for technical or interpretive reasons and those that were not mammographically detectable at screening (8). Missed intervals caused by interpretive errors result from oversight on the part of the radiologist or misinterpretation of nonspecific mammographic signs of malignancy (3,6,9).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Missed intervals caused by interpretive errors result from oversight on the part of the radiologist or misinterpretation of nonspecific mammographic signs of malignancy (3,6,9). True intervals are those without visible tumor signs at screening and account for 65% to 75% of all intervals (6,8). These cancers could have existed at the time of screening but were ''masked'' from detection as result of a lobular histology, an absence of calcifications, or an increased breast density, or these cancers could be incident tumors with a high tumor growth rate (8,10,11).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…[39][40][41] As reported recently elsewhere, 42 the interval cancers had more favourable prognosis in terms of node status than cancers presenting symptomatically outside the programme. These findings contrast with those found for interval cancers in the Mälmo screening programme, in which interval cancers were more aggressive and showed higher mortality than control cancers.…”
Section: Figure 4 Risk Group Given Appearance Of Lesions (A) On Screementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Women who develop breast cancer between screening intervals are younger (1,2) and have denser breasts (3,4) than those who are diagnosed at scheduled screens. The tumors are larger and more often have a lobular (1,3,5) or medullary histology (2), and they are more frequently lymph node positive (6). Furthermore, these tumors tend to possess aggressive biological features, such as increased tumor cell proliferation (7,8), estrogen receptor (ER) -negative status, and p53 expression (1,8), and a difference in c-erbB-2 amplification has been reported between interval and screen-detected cancers (9).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%