scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Anthony J. Maxwell

Bio: Anthony J. Maxwell is an academic researcher from University of Manchester. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Mammography. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 105 publications receiving 1452 citations. Previous affiliations of Anthony J. Maxwell include University of Salford & Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Following wide consultation, the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group has produced a scoring system for the classification of breast imaging that will facilitate audit and the development of nationally agreed standards for the investigation of women with breast disease.

134 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated whether introduction of MRI surveillance improves 5-and 10-year survival of high-risk women and determine the accuracy of MRI breast cancer detection compared with mammography-only or no enhanced surveillance and compare size and pathology of cancers detected in women screened with MRI + mammography and mammography only.
Abstract: Women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer tend to develop the disease at a younger age with denser breasts making mammography screening less effective. The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for familial breast cancer screening programs in recent years was intended to improve outcomes in these women. We aimed to assess whether introduction of MRI surveillance improves 5- and 10-year survival of high-risk women and determine the accuracy of MRI breast cancer detection compared with mammography-only or no enhanced surveillance and compare size and pathology of cancers detected in women screened with MRI + mammography and mammography only. We used data from two prospective studies where asymptomatic women with a very high breast cancer risk were screened by either mammography alone or with MRI also compared with BRCA1/2 carriers with no intensive surveillance. 63 cancers were detected in women receiving MRI + mammography and 76 in women receiving mammography only. Sensitivity of MRI + mammography was 93 % with 63 % specificity. Fewer cancers detected on MRI were lymph node positive compared to mammography/no additional screening. There were no differences in 10-year survival between the MRI + mammography and mammography-only groups, but survival was significantly higher in the MRI-screened group (95.3 %) compared to no intensive screening (73.7 %; p = 0.002). There were no deaths among the 21 BRCA2 carriers receiving MRI. There appears to be benefit from screening with MRI, particularly in BRCA2 carriers. Extended follow-up of larger numbers of high-risk women is required to assess long-term survival.

125 citations

01 Jun 2014
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated whether introduction of MRI surveillance improves 5-and 10-year survival of high-risk women and determine the accuracy of MRI breast cancer detection compared with mammography-only or no enhanced surveillance and compare size and pathology of cancers detected in women screened with MRI + mammography and mammography only.
Abstract: Women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer tend to develop the disease at a younger age with denser breasts making mammography screening less effective. The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for familial breast cancer screening programs in recent years was intended to improve outcomes in these women. We aimed to assess whether introduction of MRI surveillance improves 5- and 10-year survival of high-risk women and determine the accuracy of MRI breast cancer detection compared with mammography-only or no enhanced surveillance and compare size and pathology of cancers detected in women screened with MRI + mammography and mammography only. We used data from two prospective studies where asymptomatic women with a very high breast cancer risk were screened by either mammography alone or with MRI also compared with BRCA1/2 carriers with no intensive surveillance. 63 cancers were detected in women receiving MRI + mammography and 76 in women receiving mammography only. Sensitivity of MRI + mammography was 93 % with 63 % specificity. Fewer cancers detected on MRI were lymph node positive compared to mammography/no additional screening. There were no differences in 10-year survival between the MRI + mammography and mammography-only groups, but survival was significantly higher in the MRI-screened group (95.3 %) compared to no intensive screening (73.7 %; p = 0.002). There were no deaths among the 21 BRCA2 carriers receiving MRI. There appears to be benefit from screening with MRI, particularly in BRCA2 carriers. Extended follow-up of larger numbers of high-risk women is required to assess long-term survival.

107 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Surveillance mammography offers a survival benefit compared with a surveillance regimen that does not include surveillance mammography, and economic modelling suggests surveillance is likely to improve survival and patients should gain maximum benefit through optimal use of resources.
Abstract: Background: Following primary breast cancer treatment, the early detection of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) or ipsilateral secondary cancer in the treated breast and detection of new primary cancers in the contralateral breast is beneficial for survival. Surveillance mammography is used to detect these cancers, but the optimal frequency of surveillance and the length of follow-up are unclear. Objectives: To identify feasible management strategies for surveillance and follow-up of women after treatment for primary breast cancer in a UK setting, and to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of differing regimens. Methods: A survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists to identify current surveillance mammography regimens and inform feasible alternatives; two discrete systematic reviews of evidence published from 1990 to mid 2009 to determine (i) the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of differing surveillance mammography regimens for patient health outcomes and (ii) the test performance of surveillance mammography in the detection of IBTR and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC); statistical analysis of individual patient data (West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry and Edinburgh data sets); and economic modelling using the systematic reviews results, existing data sets, and focused searches for specific data analysis to determine the effectiveness and cost-utility of differing surveillance regimens. Results: The majority of survey respondents initiate surveillance mammography 12 months after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (87%) or mastectomy (79%). Annual surveillance mammography was most commonly reported for women after BCS or after mastectomy (72% and 53%, respectively). Most (74%) discharge women from surveillance mammography, most frequently 10 years after surgery. The majority (82%) discharge from clinical follow-up, most frequently at 5 years. Combining initiation, frequency and duration of surveillance mammography resulted in 54 differing surveillance regimens for women after BCS and 56 for women following mastectomy. The eight studies included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review suggest surveillance mammography offers a survival benefit compared with a surveillance regimen that does not include surveillance mammography. Nine studies were included in the test performance systematic review. For routine IBTR detection, surveillance mammography sensitivity ranged from 64% to 67% and specificity ranged from 85% to 97%. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), sensitivity ranged from 86% to 100% and specificity was 93%. For non-routine IBTR detection, sensitivity and specificity for surveillance mammography ranged from 50% to 83% and from 57% to 75%, respectively, and for MRI from 93% to 100% and from 88% to 96%, respectively. For routine MCBC detection, one study reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% for both surveillance mammography and MRI, although this was a highly select population. Data set analysis showed that IBTR has an adverse effect on survival. Furthermore, women experiencing a second tumour measuring >20 mm in diameter were at a significantly greater risk of death than those with no recurrence or those whose tumour was <10mm in diameter. In the base-case analysis, the strategy with the highest net benefit, and most likely to be considered cost-effective, was surveillance mammography alone, provided every 12 months at a societal willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of either 20,000 pound or 30,000 pound. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for surveillance mammography alone every 12 months compared with no surveillance was 4727 pound. Limitations: Few studies met the review inclusion criteria and none of the studies was a randomised controlled trial. The limited and variable nature of the data available precluded any quantitative analysis. There was no useable evidence contained in the Breast Cancer Registry database to assess the effectiveness of surveillance mammography directly. The results of the economic model should be considered exploratory and interpreted with caution given the paucity of data available to inform the economic model. Conclusions: Surveillance is likely to improve survival and patients should gain maximum benefit through optimal use of resources, with those women with a greater likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC being offered more comprehensive and more frequent surveillance. Further evidence is required to make a robust and informed judgement on the effectiveness of surveillance mammography and follow-up. The utility of national data sets could be improved and there is a need for high-quality, direct head-to-head studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of tests used in the surveillance population. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

100 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Magnetic seeds are a feasible and safe method of breast lesion localization and can be accurately placed, demonstrate no migration in this feasibility study and are detectable in all sizes and depths of breast tissue.
Abstract: Wire localization has several disadvantages, notably wire migration and difficulty scheduling the procedure close to surgery. Radioactive seed localization overcomes these disadvantages, but implementation is limited due to radiation safety requirements. Magnetic seeds potentially offer the logistical benefits and transcutaneous detection equivalence of a radioactive seed, with easier implementation. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using magnetic seeds for breast lesion localization. A two-centre open-label cohort study to assess the feasibility and safety of magnetic seed (Magseed) localization of breast lesions. Magseeds were placed under radiological guidance into women having total mastectomy surgery. The primary outcome measure was seed migration distance. Secondary outcome measures included accuracy of placement, ease of transcutaneous detection, seed integrity and safety. Twenty-nine Magseeds were placed into the breasts of 28 patients under ultrasound guidance. There was no migration of the seeds between placement and surgery. Twenty-seven seeds were placed directly in the target lesion with the other seeds being 2 and 3 mm away. All seeds were detectable transcutaneously in all breast sizes and at all depths. There were no complications or safety issues. Magnetic seeds are a feasible and safe method of breast lesion localization. They can be accurately placed, demonstrate no migration in this feasibility study and are detectable in all sizes and depths of breast tissue. Now that safety and feasibility have been demonstrated, further clinical studies are required to evaluate the seed’s effectiveness in wide local excision surgery.

89 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite the fact that the biologic phenotype of ILC is quite favorable, these patients do not have better clinical outcomes than do patients with IDC, and management decisions should be based on individual patient and tumor biologic characteristics.
Abstract: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) comprises approximately 10% of breast cancers and appears to have a distinct biology. Because it is less common than infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC), few data have been reported that address the biologic features of ILC in the context of their clinical outcome. In the present study we undertook an extensive comparison of ILC and IDC using a large database to provide a more complete and reliable assessment of their biologic phenotypes and clinical behaviors. The clinical and biological features of 4140 patients with ILC were compared with those of 45,169 patients with IDC (not otherwise specified). The median follow-up period was 87 months. In comparison with IDC, ILC was significantly more likely to occur in older patients, to be larger in size, to be estrogen and progesterone receptor positive, to have lower S-phase fraction, to be diploid, and to be HER-2, p53, and epidermal growth factor receptor negative. It was more common for ILC than for IDC to metastasize to the gastrointestinal tract and ovary. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was higher for ILC patients than for IDC patients (20.9% versus 11.2%; P < 0.0001). Breast preservation was modestly less frequent in ILC patients than in IDC patients. The 5-year disease-free survival was 85.7% for ILC and 83.5% for IDC (P = 0.13). The 5-year overall survival was 85.6% for ILC and 84.1% for IDC (P = 0.64). Despite the fact that the biologic phenotype of ILC is quite favorable, these patients do not have better clinical outcomes than do patients with IDC. At present, management decisions should be based on individual patient and tumor biologic characteristics, and not on lobular histology.

748 citations

01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: User experience surveys (UESs) are regarded as an important part of the overall performance framework for social care and, providing councils with information about how they might improve services locally, and are required to submit their results to government bodies so that the relative performance of the CSSRs can be judged.
Abstract: For some time now councils with social services responsibilities (CSSRs) have been required to conduct surveys of user’s experience of social services. These have taken place nationally in three-yearly cycles. In 2002/03 the survey was for older people, in 2003/04 it was for younger adults with physical and sensory impairments, and in 2004/05 it was for children. 2005/06 marked the beginning of the second wave of the cycle. The mandate for conducting surveys of user’s experiences and satisfaction with services was first given in the white paper Modern Local Government: in Touch with the People (Department for the Environment, Trade and the Regions, 1998). In 2002 the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and SPRU developed a set of questionnaires for this purpose (Qureshi and Rowlands, 2004). Subsequent national surveys have drawn on this work to identify a set of compulsory questions for each round. User experience surveys (UESs) are regarded as an important part of the overall performance framework for social care and, providing councils with information about how they might improve services locally. Local authorities are required to submit their results to government bodies so that the relative performance of the CSSRs can be judged. This report is composed of five sections. The aims and objectives of the report are outlined in the second section and the method used to gather the data is outlined in section 3. In section 4 we report on the findings from the fieldwork and draw some conclusions and recommendations for the national survey in section 5. The topic guides for the focus groups and interviews are included in the appendices along with a brief discussion of the findings from the focus groups and a copy of the final extended questionnaire.

628 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted and recommended regular history, physical examination, and mammography for breast cancer follow-up.
Abstract: Purpose To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent. Methods To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating. Results There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted. Recommendations Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, eve...

520 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Age-specific risks for a woman with one or more relatives affected with breast cancer at various ages at onset are given and genetic models fit previously to these data by the authors have provided evidence for a rare autosomal dominant allele that results in increased susceptibility to breast cancer.
Abstract: Background. Improvements in screening techniques have made significant contributions to the early detection of breast cancer. Physicians thus face the task of providing appropriate screening schedules for their patients. One group for whom this is particularly important are those women with a family history of breast cancer. Methods. In this report, data from the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study, a population-based, case-control study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, are used to provide age-specific risk estimates of breast cancer for women with a family history of breast cancer. The data set includes 4730 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer age 20–54 years and 4688 control subjects who were frequency matched to patients by geographic region and 5-year age intervals. The data set also includes family histories of breast cancer in mothers and sisters of both patients and control subjects. Results. Genetic models fit previously to these data by the authors have provided evidence for a rare autosomal dominant allele that results in increased susceptibility to breast cancer. In addition, these models predict that women who carry the allele are at greater risk of developing breast cancer at any age than are women who do not carry the allele. The increase in risk in carriers versus noncarriers does, however, decrease with increasing age. Based on the parameters of this model, age-specific risks for a woman with one or more relatives affected with breast cancer at various ages at onset are given. Conclusions. These tables can be used for the purpose of counseling women at high risk of breast cancer development, that is, women with a family history of breast cancer.

463 citations