Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Models of Breast Cancer Growth and Investigations of Adjuvant Surgical Oophorectomy

  • Editorial
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  1. Schipper H, Turley EA, Baum M. A new biological framework for cancer research. Lancet 1996;348:1149–51.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brinkley D, Haybrittle JL. The curability of breast cancer. Lancet 1975;2:95–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mamby CC, Love RR, Heaney E. Metastatic breast cancer 39 years after primary treatment. Wis Med J 1993;92:567–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Demicheli R, Retsky MW, Swartzendruber DE, Bonadonna G. Proposal for a new model of breast cancer metastatic development. Ann Oncol 1997;8:1075–80.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Demicheli R, Terenziani M, Valagussa P, et al. Local recurrences following mastectomy: support for the concept of tumor dormancy (comment). J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baum M. Keynote Address at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 12, 2002. 2002.

  7. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2738–46.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Demicheli R, Abbattista A, Miceli R, et al. Time distribution of the recurrence risk for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy: further support about the concept of tumor dormancy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;41:177–85.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baum M, Badwe RA. Does surgery influence the natural history of breast cancer. Wise L, Johnson H Jr eds. Breast Cancer: Controversies in Management Futura Armonk, NY: Publishing Company, 1994;61-9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Retsky MW, Demicheli R, Swartzendruber DE, et al. Computer simulation of a breast cancer metastasis model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;45:193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Premenopausal status accelerates relapse in node positive breast cancer: hypothesis links angiogenesis, screening controversy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;65:217–24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yakovlev AY, Tsodikov AD, Boucher K, Kerber R. The shape of the hazard function in breast carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:1789–98.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sugg SL, Donegan WL. Staging and prognosis. Donegan WL, Spratt JS eds. Cancer of the Breast Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2002;491-506

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yasui Y, Potter JD. The shape of age-incidence curves of female breast cancer by hormone-receptor status. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:431–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rosner BA, Colditz GA, Chen WY, et al. Risk factors for estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer (abstract 157). Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:S40.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451–67.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Norton L, Simon R. Tumor size, sensitivity to therapy, and design of treatment schedules. Cancer Treat Rep 1977;61:1307–17.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Norton L. A Gompertzian model of human breast cancer growth (comment). Cancer Res 1988;48:7067–71.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldie JH, Coldman AJ. The genetic origin of drug resistance in neoplasms: implications for systemic therapy. Cancer Res 1984;44:3643–53.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Skipper HE. Kinetics of mammary tumor cell growth and implications for therapy. Cancer 1971;28:1479–99.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of the Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1431–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Piccart-Gebhart MJ. Mathematics and oncology: a match for life?. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1425–28.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gunduz N, Fisher B, Saffer EA. Effect of surgical removal on the growth and kinetics of residual tumor. Cancer Res 1979;39:3861–65.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher B, Gunduz N, Saffer EA. Influence of the interval between primary tumor removal and chemotherapy on kinetics and growth of metastases. Cancer Res 1983;43:1488–92.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meltzer A. Dormancy and breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 1990;43:181–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hahnfeldt P, Panigrahy D, Folkman J, Hlatky L. Tumor development under angiogenic signaling: a dynamical theory of tumor growth, treatment response, and postvascular dormancy. Cancer Res 1999;59:4770–5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baum M, Chaplain MAJ, Anderson ARA, et al. Does breast cancer exist in a state of chaos?. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:886–91.

    Google Scholar 

  28. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van ’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Love RR, Philips J. Oophorectomy for breast cancer: history revisited. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1433–4.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Love RR, Duc NB, Dinh NV, et al. Mastectomy and oophorectomy by menstrual cycle phase in operable breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:662–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic or immune therapy: 133 randomised trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Lancet 1992;339:1–15, 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Scottish Cancer Trials Breast Group and ICRF Breast Unit Guy’s Hospital. Adjuvant ovarian ablation versus CMF chemotherapy in premenopausal women with pathological stage II breast carcinoma: the Scottish Trial. Lancet 1993;341:1293–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Roché H, Mihura J, de Lafontan B, et al. Castration and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy (FAC) for premenopausal, node and receptors positive breast cancer patients: a randomized trial with a 7 years median follow up (abstract 134). Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996;15:117.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Roché HH, Kerbrat P, Bonneterre J, et al. Complete hormonal, blockade versus chemotherapy in premenopausal early-stage breast cancer patients with positive hormone-receptor and 1–3 node-positive tumor: results of the FASG 06 Trial (abstract 279). Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000;19:72a.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ejlertsen B, Dombernowsky P, Mouridsen HT, et al. Comparable effect of ovarian ablation (OA) and CMF chemotherapy in premenopausal hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients (PRP). Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol, 1999;18-66a, (abstract 248)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Amoroso D, et al. Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression as adjuvant treatment of estrogen receptor-positive pre-/perimenopausal breast cancer patients: results of the Italian Breast Cancer Adjuvant Study Group 02 Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2718–27.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Castiglione-Gertsch M, O’Neill A, Gelber RD, et al. Is the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy always necessary in node negative (N-) pre/perimenopausal breast cancer patients (PTS) who receive goserelin? First results of IBCSG Trial VIII (abstract 149). Proc Annu Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21:38a.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jonat W, Kaufmann M, Sauerbrei W, et al. Goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: the Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Association Study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4628–35.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jakesz R, Hausmaninger H, Kubista E, et al. Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer—Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4621–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Love RR, Duc NB, Allred DC, et al. Oophorectomy and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy in premenopausal Vietnamese and Chinese women with operable breast cancer. [This paper has also been published in Vietnamese as Duc NB, Dinh NV, Love RR. Adjuvant oophorectomy and tamoxifen in treatment of Vietnamese and Chinese pre-menopausal operable breast cancer cases. Journal of Practical Medicine 2002;431:200–8.] J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2559–66.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pritchard KI. Adjuvant therapy for premenopausal women with breast cancer: is it time for another paradigm shift? (Editorial). J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4611–4.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, et al. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3817–27.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Badwe RA, Gregory WM, Chaudary MA, et al. Timing of surgery during menstrual cycle and survival of premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. Lancet 1991;337:1261–4.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Love RR, DeMets DL, Allred DC. Re: The influence of menstrual cycle phase on surgical treatment of primary breast cancer: have we made any progress over the past 13 years? (Letter). J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1722–3.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hagen AA, Hrushesky WJ. Menstrual timing of breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg 1998;175:245–61.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cheng JD, Weiner LM. Tumors and their microenvironments: tilling the soil. Commentary Re: Scott AM, et al. A phase I dose-escalation study of sibrotuzumab in patients with advanced or metastatic fibroblast activation protein-positive cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:1590–5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Heer K, Kumar H, Speirs V, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor in premenopausal women—indicator of the best time for breast cancer surgery?. Br J Cancer 1998;78:1203–7.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lange CA, Richer JK, Horwitz KB. Hypothesis: progesterone primes breast cancer cells for cross-talk with proliferative or antiproliferative signals. Mol Endocrinol 1999;13:829–36.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vantyghem SA, Postenka CO, Chambers AF. Estrous cycle influences organ-specific metastasis of B16F10 melanoma cells. Cancer Res 2003;63:4763–5.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Maeda T, Alexander CM, Friedl A. Induction of syndecan-1 expression in stomal fibroblasts promotes proliferation of human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2004;64:612–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin

    Richard R. Love MD & John E. Niederhuber MD

  2. Department of Medicine (RRL) and Surgery (JEN), University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, 610 Walnut St., 256 WARF Bldg., Madison, WI, 53726–2397

    Richard R. Love MD

Authors
  1. Richard R. Love MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John E. Niederhuber MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard R. Love MD.

Additional information

Supported in part by NIH/NCI CA64339

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Love, R.R., Niederhuber, J.E. Models of Breast Cancer Growth and Investigations of Adjuvant Surgical Oophorectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 11, 818–828 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2004.02.019

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2004.02.019

Search

Navigation