Author
Ann H. Partridge
Other affiliations: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center ...read more
Bio: Ann H. Partridge is an academic researcher from Harvard University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 71, co-authored 437 publications receiving 23939 citations. Previous affiliations of Ann H. Partridge include Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center & Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Topics: Breast cancer, Medicine, Cancer, Internal medicine, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
European Institute of Oncology1, Harvard University2, University of Sydney3, Institut Jules Bordet4, Kantonsspital St. Gallen5, University of St. Gallen6, Loyola University Chicago7, Institut Gustave Roussy8, Karolinska Institutet9, University of Bordeaux10, University of Geneva11, University of Pittsburgh12, University of Copenhagen13, University of Newcastle14, Medical University of Vienna15, University of Toronto16, University of Michigan17, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center18, Mayo Clinic19, Gdańsk Medical University20, University of Gothenburg21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill23, Université libre de Bruxelles24, Netherlands Cancer Institute25, Fudan University26, Kyoto University27, King's College London28, University of Göttingen29, Emory University30
TL;DR: The 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2013) Expert Panel reviewed and endorsed substantial new evidence on aspects of the local and regional therapies for early breast cancer, supporting less extensive surgery to the axilla and shorter durations of radiation therapy.
2,831 citations
TL;DR: Fertility preservation is often possible in people undergoing treatment for cancer and should be considered as early as possible during treatment planning, to preserve the full range of options.
Abstract: Purpose To develop guidance to practicing oncologists about available fertility preservation methods and related issues in people treated for cancer. Methods An expert panel and a writing committee were formed. The questions to be addressed by the guideline were determined, and a systematic review of the literature from 1987 to 2005 was performed, and included a search of online databases and consultation with content experts. Results The literature review found many cohort studies, case series, and case reports, but relatively few randomized or definitive trials examining the success and impact of fertility preservation methods in people with cancer. Fertility preservation methods are used infrequently in people with cancer. Recommendations As part of education and informed consent before cancer therapy, oncologists should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years and be prepared to discuss possible fertility preservation options or refer appropriate and interested patients to reproductive specialists. Clinician judgment should be employed in the timing of raising this issue, but discussion at the earliest possible opportunity is encouraged. Sperm and embryo cryopreservation are considered standard practice and are widely available; other available fertility preservation methods should be considered investigational and be performed in centers with the necessary expertise.
1,784 citations
TL;DR: Health care providers should address the possibility of infertility with patients treated during their reproductive years and be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists.
Abstract: Purpose To update guidance for health care providers about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer.
1,328 citations
TL;DR: There is conflicting evidence to recommend gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) and other means of ovarian suppression for fertility preservation and the panel notes that the field of ovarian tissue cryopreservation is advancing quickly and may evolve to become standard therapy in the future.
Abstract: PurposeTo provide current recommendations about fertility preservation for adults and children with cancer.MethodsA systematic review of the literature published from January 2013 to March 2017 was completed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. An Update Panel reviewed the identified publications.ResultsThere were 61 publications identified and reviewed. None of these publications prompted a significant change in the 2013 recommendations.RecommendationsHealth care providers should initiate the discussion on the possibility of infertility with patients with cancer treated during their reproductive years or with parents/guardians of children as early as possible. Providers should be prepared to discuss fertility preservation options and/or to refer all potential patients to appropriate reproductive specialists. Although patients may be focused initially on their cancer diagnosis, providers should advise patients regarding potential threats to fertility as early as possible in the treatment process so as t...
865 citations
Harvard University1, Medical University of Vienna2, Institut Jules Bordet3, University of St. Gallen4, Kantonsspital St. Gallen5, Institut Gustave Roussy6, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center7, Karolinska Institutet8, University of Bordeaux9, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill10, Queen Mary University of London11, Charité12, Marmara University13, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto14, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich15, University of Michigan16, National Taiwan University17, University of Ulm18, National Institutes of Health19, Gdańsk Medical University20, Sahlgrenska University Hospital21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Toronto23, Netherlands Cancer Institute24, Paracelsus Private Medical University of Salzburg25, Fudan University26, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust27, Kyoto University28, Institute of Cancer Research29, University of Milan30, McMaster University31
TL;DR: The 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer, and recommended bisphosphonate use in postmenopausal women to prevent breast cancer recurrence.
777 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: Overall cancer incidence trends are stable in women, but declining by 3.1% per year in men, much of which is because of recent rapid declines in prostate cancer diagnoses, and brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the leading cause of cancer death among children and adolescents.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States in the current year and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data were collected by the National Cancer Institute (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (National Program of Cancer Registries), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2016, 1,685,210 new cancer cases and 595,690 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Overall cancer incidence trends (13 oldest SEER registries) are stable in women, but declining by 3.1% per year in men (from 2009-2012), much of which is because of recent rapid declines in prostate cancer diagnoses. The cancer death rate has dropped by 23% since 1991, translating to more than 1.7 million deaths averted through 2012. Despite this progress, death rates are increasing for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and uterine corpus, and cancer is now the leading cause of death in 21 states, primarily due to exceptionally large reductions in death from heart disease. Among children and adolescents (aged birth-19 years), brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the leading cause of cancer death because of the dramatic therapeutic advances against leukemia. Accelerating progress against cancer requires both increased national investment in cancer research and the application of existing cancer control knowledge across all segments of the population.
14,664 citations
TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
13,813 citations
TL;DR: This Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and includes an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.
8,021 citations
TL;DR: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population and for the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors.
Abstract: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
5,516 citations