Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 339–344 | Cite as

Interrupted pregnancy as an indicator of poor prognosis in T1, 2, N0, M0 primary breast cancer

  • Helen E. Ownby
  • Silvana Martino
  • Larry D. Roi
  • Laura Howard
  • Jose Russo
  • Samuel Brooks
  • Michael J. Brennan
  • The Breast Cancer Prognostic Study Associates
Report

Summary

We examined the records of women with primary breast cancer for a history of pregnancy and live births. The patients were all histopathologic T1, 2, N0, M0 white females, untreated post modified radical mastectomy. Patients with a history of interrupted pregnancies have a significantly shorter time to recurrence than those with normal pregnancy history. A trend toward a lower incidence of highly differentiated histological pattern is also observed in cancers from these patients.

Keywords

breast cancer histology interrupted pregnancy prognosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rich MA, Brennan MJ, and the Scientific, Pathology and Surgical Associates of the MCF Breast Cancer Prognostic Study: The Breast Cancer Prognostic Program: A study of the metastatic process.In MJ Brennan et al. (ed). New Concepts in Etiology and Control. Academic Press, New York, 1980, pp 29–51Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Slack NH, Bross IDJ, and Cooperating Investigators: Cancer of the breast: size of neoplasm and prognosis. Cancer 24:1071–1080, 1969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedell GH, Goldenberg IS, Masnyk IH, McMahan CA, Ravdin RG, Roberts JB, Segaloff A, Welsch F: Identification of breast cancer patients with high risk of early recurrence after radical mastectomy. I. Description of study. J Natl Cancer Inst 53:603–607, 1974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Joint Committee for Cancer Staging and End-Results Reporting: Manual for Staging of Cancer, 1978Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foote FW Jr, Stewart FW: Histologic classification of carcinoma of the breast. Surgery 19:74, 1946Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gross AJ, Clark VA: Survival distributions: reliability applications in the biomedical sciences. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975, p 31Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breslow N: A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika 57:579–594, 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox DR: Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Series B. 34:187–220, 1972Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL: The statistical analysis of failure time data. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1980, pp 70–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox DJ, Guire KE: Documentation for MIDAS. 3rd ed. Statistical Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1976Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brennan MJ, Russo J, Brooks S, Ownby H, Roi L, and the Breast Cancer Prognostic Study Associates: Identification of a subset of T1, 2, N0 primary breast cancer patients with poor prognosis (abstract). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2:280, 1982Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi NW, Howe GR, Miller AB, Matthews V, Morgan RW, Munan L, Burch JD, Feather J, Jain M, Kelly A: An epidemiologic study of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 107:501–521, 1978Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande TJ, Rosario I, Gray GE: Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer 53:72–76, 1981Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valoras VG, MacMahon B, Trichopoulos D, Polychronopoulou A: Lactation and reproductive histories of breast cancer patients in greater Athens, 1965–67. Int J Cancer 4:350–363, 1969Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim TM, Chen KP, MacMahon B: Epidemiologic characteristics of cancer of the breast in Taiwan. Cancer 27:1497–1504, 1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mirra AP, Cole P, MacMahon B: Breast cancer in an area of high parity. Sao Paulo, Brazil. Cancer Res 31:77–83, 1971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ravnihar B, MacMahon B, Lindtner J: Epidemiologic features of breast cancer in Slovenia, 1965–67. Eur J Cancer 7:295–306, 1971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glass RH, Golbus MS: Habitual abortion. Fertil Steril 29:257–265, 1980Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tho PT, Byrd JR, McDonough PG: Etiologies and subsequent reproductive performance of 100 couples with recurrent abortion. Fertil Steril 32:389–395, 1979Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grattarola R: The premenstrual endometrial pattern of women with breast cancer. Cancer 17:1119–1122, 1964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papatestas AE, Mulvihill M, Josi C, Ioannovich J, Lesnick G, Aufses AH: Parity and prognosis in breast cancer. Cancer 45:191–194, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mauvais-Jarvis P, Sitruk-Ware R, Kuttenn F, Sterkers N: Luteal phase insufficiency: A common pathophysiologic factor in development of benign and malignant breast diseases.In RD Bulbrook and DJ Taylor (eds): Commentaries on Research in Breast Disease. Alan Liss, New York, 1979, pp 25–29Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russo J, Tay LK, Russo IH: Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2:5–73, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen E. Ownby
    • 1
  • Silvana Martino
    • 1
  • Larry D. Roi
    • 1
  • Laura Howard
    • 1
  • Jose Russo
    • 1
  • Samuel Brooks
    • 1
  • Michael J. Brennan
    • 1
  • The Breast Cancer Prognostic Study Associates
  1. 1.Michigan Cancer FoundationDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations