Cited by 53BRCA gene mutations in cancerBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

Familial breast cancer: an investigation into the outcome of treatment for early stage disease

Eccles, Diana, Simmonds, Peter, Goddard, Jonathan, Coultas, Marie, Hodgson, Shirley, Lalloo, Fiona, Evans, Gareth, Haites, Neva·2001·Familial Cancer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of treatment in 304 women with familial and sporadic breast cancer to clarify the options for the primary management of familial breast cancer. The majority of women were consecutively ascertained on the basis of either breast cancer diagnosed at age < 40 years or bilateral breast cancer. In addition, known BRCA1 mutation carriers were identified through the genetics services in participating centres. These patients were subdivided into those with a significant family history of breast cancer or known BRCA1 mutation (FH+) and those with no significant family history (FH-). There were no significant differences in age, surgical treatment or adjuvant treatment between the two groups, but there were significantly more women whose nodal status was unknown in the FH+ group. Ipsilateral recurrence occurred in 22.2% of FH+ patients compared with 24.1% of FH- patients (p = 0.774) who underwent breast conserving surgery. There was a striking excess of contralateral breast cancers in the FH+ group (35.9% v 16%, p = 0.0007), with a cumulative risk of contralateral cancer of 36% at 10 years. This was reflected in a non-significant trend toward worse relapse free survival in the FH+ group (p = 0.0563), but no difference was observed in overall survival between the two patient groups (p = 0.142). Similarly, for patients with known BRCA1 mutations, contralateral recurrence occurred more frequently, but other outcomes were…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1013867917101

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eccles, D., Simmonds, P., Goddard, J., Coultas, M., Hodgson, S., Lalloo, F., Evans, G., & Haites, N.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
Venue
Familial Cancer
Published
2001-04
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
65-72
ISSN
  • 1389-9600 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7292
OpenAlex
W1574522694
Cited by
53
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Familial Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
hereditary breast cancer, BRCA1 mutation carriers, early breast cancer, contralateral breast cancer, breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant therapy, relapse-free survival, overall survival, bilateral breast cancer, young women with breast cancer, family history of breast cancer
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, DNA Mutational Analysis, Female, Genetic Testing, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neoplasm Staging, Pedigree, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Mastectomy, Segmental, Survival Analysis, Risk Assessment, Genes, BRCA1, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review