ABSTRACT
Breast preservation has been shown to be a good alternative to mastectomy in selected patients with breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of cancer developing in the opposite breast to determine if breast preservation should be attempted in that breast as well. From 1979 to 1988, 172 women underwent tylectomy, axillary dissection and irradiation for carcinoma of the breast. All had follow-up mammogram. Mean age was 55 years. Mean follow-up time was 50 months. Thirteen patients (7.6%) developed cancer in the opposite breast. Three cancers were carcinoma in situ, nine were stage I, and one was stage IIa. Nine of 13 patients had breast preservation therapy, and four had mastectomies. Ten patients are alive with no evidence of disease, two are alive with disease and one died with disease. Breast preservation for bilateral breast cancer is a safe alternative if patients can be followed closely.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma/therapy , Neoplasms, Second Primary/therapy , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Carcinoma in Situ/therapy , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Louisiana/epidemiology , Mastectomy , Middle Aged , Neoplasms, Second Primary/mortality , Retrospective Studies , Risk , Survival RateABSTRACT
This retrospective study defines a population with neoplastic colonic polyps who have had colonoscopic polypectomy and, in follow-up within one year, a repeat colonoscopic evaluation. The population was broken down into two groups, one group that had polyps at the second examination and one group that did not. This study determined which factor(s) were significant among this population in distinguishing whether new polyps would be found at one year follow-up. The authors found that among the many variables studied, only polyp multiplicity was significant in predicting polyp recurrence. More than one polyp found at index colonoscopy led to a significant chance of having a new polyp after only one year. Also, it was demonstrated that these "new" polyps were unlikely to have been "missed" polyps from the initial colonoscopy. Because of the shifting location, smaller size, and fewer instances of histologic atypia in these polyps compared with those at index examination, the authors believe that polyps found after one year may be assumed to have arisen de novo. Finally, the authors show that a significant number of polyps occur beyond the reach of the flexible sigmoidoscope (approximately 60 cm). The authors recommend that patients who have polyps undergo a colonoscopic examination. When patients are re-evaluated after having colonoscopic neoplastic polypectomy, they should undergo repeat colonoscopy.
