St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
  • For their own good
    Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Email editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message

Smaller tumors boost breast cancer survival

Associated Press
Published August 8, 2005

Much of the improvement in breast cancer survival in recent years is because the average tumor is smaller, not just because treatments are so much better, a huge new study has found.

The study didn't look at why tumors are smaller on average. Doctors often cite an emphasis on regular mammograms for an increase in early detection of breast cancers, which can lead to earlier treatment when the tumors are smaller.

Examining 25 years of cancer records nationwide, researchers concluded that smaller tumor size accounted for 61 percent of the improvement in survival when cancer had not spread beyond the breast, and 28 percent when it had spread just a little.

For women 65 and older with early stage tumors - the most common scenario - the shift in size accounted for virtually all of the improvement in survival.

"We don't in any way want to diminish the benefits we've seen from advances in treatment because they've been enormous," lead researcher Elena Elkin said. "But not all of the improvement in survival is due to treatment when important characteristics like size have also changed over time."

The study wasn't designed to determine the value of mammograms or treatments. But it implies much about the value of early detection.

"This really helps to show the importance of screening," said Debbie Saslow, who heads breast cancer research at the American Cancer Society. "In addition to finding more small tumors, we're also finding less big tumors."

Saslow had no role in the study, which was to be published today online by the society's journal Cancer and will be in its Sept. 15 print edition.

It was conducted by doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and used a federal government's database that includes nine cancer registries covering 10 percent of the U.S. population. More than 265,000 breast tumors were analyzed.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in American women. An estimated 211,240 new cases and 40,400 deaths from it are expected this year.

Survival has increased, but experts have argued over how much of that is because of better drugs or tumors being found at earlier stages. Two-thirds of breast cancers today are diagnosed at the local stage, when they're still confined to the breast; in the 1970s, only half were.

However, this is the largest study in American women to look at size within those stages.

"Even within the same stage category, the average tumor size is smaller today than it was 25 years ago," Elkin said.

Next, researchers compared five-year survival rates for these time periods, taking into account the shift in tumor size.

For women with local-stage breast cancers, survival rose from nearly 91 percent to more than 97 percent, but was only 93 percent after adjusting for smaller tumors. Looked at another way, the shift in size accounted for 61 percent of the improvement in survival.

For regional cancers - those that spread to nearby tissue or lymph nodes but not widely throughout the body - survival rose from about 68 percent to about 80 percent, but was only 76 percent once size was factored in.

Size made a much bigger difference for older women than younger ones. A whopping 96 percent of the survival improvement for women 65 and older with local-stage cancers was explained by this. Only 38 percent of the improvement in women under 50 was due to the shift in tumor size.

"It isn't necessarily because treatment works better for certain women, it reflects who's getting more," because younger women are more likely to receive chemotherapy, Elkin said.

It also shows that older women have benefited from mammograms, Saslow said.

Federal surveys show that the percent of women 40 and older who had a mammogram in the previous two years increased from 29 percent in 1987 to 70 percent in 2000. The government recommends mammograms every one to two years for women over 40.

However, Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, noted that the study did not have information on how many of these tumors were found through mammograms or what treatments were used, so no direct conclusions about the value of these can be drawn.

Attributing the benefit of smaller tumors to early detection and mammograms "makes a lot of intuitive sense, but that's of course why we do studies as opposed to depend on leaps of logic," he said.

[Last modified August 8, 2005, 02:45:22]

Share your thoughts on this story

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters