What has changed in the clinical presentation of breast carcinoma in 15 years?

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate if there was a change in time in terms of age at diagnosis, menopausal status, pathologic tumor size, lymphatic metastasis and pathologic stage in patients with surgical treatment for breast carcinoma.
Material and Methods: The clinical and pathological characteristics of 1223 patients with breast carcinoma who underwent surgical treatment between January 1994 to December 1998, and of 1346 patients who underwent surgical treatment with the same diagnosis between January 2004 to December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed.
Results: The median age at diagnosis was 48 (20-78) years during the first period, and 50 (20-91) years during the second period. While 27% of patients were 40 years of age or younger in the first period, this ratio decreased to 20% during the second period (p=0.0001). The rate of premenopausal patients was 54% in the first period and 46% in the second period (p=0.0001). The median tumor size at diagnosis was 3 cm at the first period, and 2.5 cm at the second period. The number of patients with tumor size ≤2 cm increased in time from 391 (32%) to 531 (39%) (p=0.0001). Among young patients (aged ≤40 years), the number of patients with tumor size 2 cm or smaller were 81 (24.5%) and 92 (33.8%) at the first and second periods, respectively (p=0.001). Lymphatic metastases rate of patients aged ≤40 years was higher than patients aged >40 years, in both study periods (p=0.0001). The number of patients staged as pN1 at the first period increased from 356 (50.8%) to 441 (56.3%) at the second interval, while those staged as pN3 decreased from 251 (35.8%) to 175 (22.3%) (p=0.0001).
Conclusion: It may be concluded that recently, breast cancer is diagnosed at older ages, the rate of young and premenopausal patients and size on diagnosis has decreased, and breast-conserving surgery is used more often.

This study was designed retrospectively so the ethics committee approval was not needed.

We did not need the patient’s consent since this study was retrospective and no personal information and document were shared.

Externally peer-reviewed.

Concept - H.M.; Design - H.M., V.K., U.B.; Supervision - H.M., F.İ., K.G., U.B.; Funding - H.M., F.İ., V.K.; Data Collection and/or Processing - H.M., V.K., K.G.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - H.M., K.G.; Literature Review - H.M., F.İ.; Writer - H.M.; Critical Review - H.M., U.B.

No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.