Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Marta M. Reis is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Marta M. Reis.


International Journal of Cancer | 2002

Survival in prospectively ascertained familial breast cancer: analysis of a series stratified by tumour characteristics, BRCA mutations and oophorectomy.

Pål Møller; Åke Borg; D. Gareth Evans; Neva E. Haites; Marta M. Reis; Hans F. A. Vasen; Elaine Anderson; C. Michael Steel; Jaran Apold; David Goudie; Anthony Howell; Fiona Lalloo; Lovise Mæhle; Helen Gregory; Ketil Heimdal

Dedicated clinics have been established for the early diagnosis and treatment of women at risk for inherited breast cancer, but the effects of such interventions are currently unproven. This second report on prospectively diagnosed inherited breast cancer from the European collaborating centres supports the previous conclusions and adds information on genetic heterogeneity and the effect of oophorectomy. Of 249 patients, 20% had carcinoma in situ (CIS), 54% had infiltrating cancer without spread (CaN0) and 26% had cancer with spread (CaN+). Five‐year survival was 100% for CIS, 94% for CaN0 and 72% for CaN+ (p = 0.007). Thirty‐six patients had BRCA1 mutations, and 8 had BRCA2 mutations. Presence of BRCA1 mutation was associated with infiltrating cancer, high grade and lack of oestrogen receptor (p < 0.05 for all 3 characteristics). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, 5‐year survival was 63% vs. 91% for noncarriers (p = 0.04). For CaN0 patients, mutation carriers had 75% 5‐year disease‐free survival vs. 96% for noncarriers (p = 0.01). Twenty‐one of the mutation carriers had undergone prophylactic oophorectomy, prior to or within 6 months of diagnosis in 13 cases. All but 1 relapse occurred in the 15 who had kept their ovaries, (p < 0.01); no relapse occurred in those who had removed the ovaries within 6 months (p = 0.04) Contralateral cancer was more frequently observed in mutation noncarriers, but this finding did not reach statistical significance. Our findings support the concept that BRCA1 cancer is biologically different from other inherited breast cancers. While current screening protocols appear satisfactory for the majority of women at risk of familial breast cancer, this may not be the case for BRCA1 mutation carriers. The observed effect of oophorectomy was striking.


International Journal of Cancer | 2007

Surveillance for familial breast cancer : Differences in outcome according to BRCA mutation status

Pål Møller; D. Gareth Evans; Marta M. Reis; Helen Gregory; Elaine Anderson; Lovise Mæhle; Fiona Lalloo; Anthony Howell; Jaran Apold; Neal Clark; Anneke Lucassen; C. Michael Steel

Women with a family history of breast cancer are commonly offered regular clinical or mammographic surveillance from age 30. Data on the efficacy of such programmes are limited. Clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded on all breast and ovarian cancers diagnosed within familial breast cancer surveillance programmes at collaborating centers in Norway and the UK up to the end of 2005. These have been analyzed according to the mutation status of the affected women (BRCA1+ve, BRCA2+ve or mutation‐negative). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 442 patients subsequently followed for a total of 2095 years. Eighty‐nine (20%) had BRCA1 mutations, 35 (8%) BRCA2 mutations and in 318 (72%) no mutation could be detected (“mut neg”). Five‐year survival in BRCA1 was 73% compared to 96% in BRCA2 and 92% in mut neg (p = 0.000). Among BRCA1 mutation‐carriers, 5‐year survival was 67% for cases diagnosed as carcinoma in situ, 84% for node‐negative invasive cancers and 58% for those with nodal involvement (p > 0.05). For BRCA2 mutation‐carriers the corresponding figures were 100, 100 and 90% (p > 0.05), while for mut neg women they were 100, 97 and 71% (p = 0.03). Regular surveillance in women at increased familial risk of breast cancer is associated with a good outcome if they carry BRCA2 mutations or no detectable mutation. Carriers of BRCA1 mutations fare significantly worse, even when their tumors are diagnosed at an apparently early stage. The differences in outcome associated with different genetic causes of disease were associated with demonstrated differences in tumor biology. The findings demonstrate the outcome for genetically different breast cancers detected within a programme for early diagnosis and treatment, which is relevant to genetic counseling when women at risk have to chose between the options for preventing death from inherited breast cancer.


Disease Markers | 1999

Efficacy of early diagnosis and treatment in women with a family history of breast cancer. European Familial Breast Cancer Collaborative Group.

Pål Møller; Marta M. Reis; D. Gareth Evans; Hans F. A. Vasen; Neva E. Haites; Elaine Anderson; C. M. Steel; Jaran Apold; Fiona Lalloo; Lovise Mæhle; P Preece; Helen Gregory; Ketil Heimdal

Protocols for activity aiming at early diagnosis and treatment of inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancer have been reported. Available reports on outcome of such programmes are considered here. It is concluded that the ongoing activities should continue with minor modifications. Direct evidence of a survival benefit from breast and ovarian screening is not yet available. On the basis of expert opinion and preliminary results from intervention programmes indicating good detection rates for early breast cancers and 5-year survival concordant with early diagnosis, we propose that women at high risk for inherited breast cancer be offered genetic counselling, education in ‘breast awareness’ and annual mammography and clinical expert examination from around 30 years of age. Mammography every second year may be sufficient from 60 years on. BRCA1 mutation carriers may benefit from more frequent examinations and cancer risk may be reduced by oophorectomy before 40–50 years of age. We strongly advocate that all activities should be organized as multicentre studies subjected to continuous evaluation to measure the effects of the interventions on long-term mortality, to match management options more precisely to individual risks and to prepare the ground for studies on chemoprevention.


Disease Markers | 1999

Guidelines for follow-up of women at high risk for inherited breast cancer: consensus statement from the Biomed 2 Demonstration Programme on Inherited Breast Cancer.

Pål Møller; D. Gareth Evans; Neva E. Haites; Hans F. A. Vasen; Marta M. Reis; Elaine Anderson; Jaran Apold; Shirley Hodgson; D. Eccles; Håkan Olsson; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Jenny Chang-Claude; Patrick Morrison; G. Bevilacqua; Ketil Heimdal; Lovise Mæhle; Fiona Lalloo; Helen Gregory; P Preece; Åke Borg; Norman C. Nevin; Maria Adelaide Caligo; C. M. Steel

Protocols for activity aiming at early diagnosis and treatment of inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancer have been reported. Available reports on outcome of such programmes are considered here. It is concluded that the ongoing activities should continue with minor modifications. Direct evidence of a survival benefit from breast and ovarian screening is not yet available. On the basis of expert opinion and preliminary results from intervention programmes indicating good detection rates for early breast cancers and 5-year survival concordant with early diagnosis, we propose that women at high risk for inherited breast cancer be offered genetic counselling, education in ‘breast awareness’ and annual mammography and clinical expert examination from around 30 years of age. Mammography every second year may be sufficient from 60 years on. BRCA1 mutation carriers may benefit from more frequent examinations and cancer risk may be reduced by oophorectomy before 40–50 years of age. We strongly advocate that all activities should be organized as multicentre studies subjected to continuous evaluation to measure the effects of the interventions on long-term mortality, to match management options more precisely to individual risks and to prepare the ground for studies on chemoprevention.


Disease Markers | 1999

Efficacy of Early Diagnosis and Treatment in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer

Pål Møller; Marta M. Reis; Gareth Evans; Hans F. A. Vasen; Neva E. Haites; Elaine Anderson; C. Michael Steel; Jaran Apold; Fiona Lalloo; Lovise Mæhle; Paul Preece; Helen Gregory; Ketil Heimdal

BACKGROUND: Surveillance programmes for women at increased genetic risk of breast cancer are being established worldwide but little is known of their efficacy in early detection of cancers and hence reduction in mortality. METHODS: Data were contributed from seven centres participating in the EU Demonstration Programme on Clinical Services for Familial Breast Cancer. All breast tumours (n = 161) detected prospectively, from the time of enrolment of women in a screening programme, were recorded. Analysis took account of age at diagnosis, whether tumours were screen-detected or not, their pathological stage and outcome by Kaplan—Meier survival plots. RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis was 48.6 years. Overall, 75% of tumours were detected in the course of planned examinations. For women under age 50 at diagnosis, this figure was 68%. Eighteen percent were mammographically negative, (23% in patients under age 50). At first (“prevalence”) round and at follow-up screening, 16% and 22% of tumours respectively were carcinoma in situ (CIS) while 27% and 22% respectively had evidence of nodal or distant spread (CaN+). Comparison of screen-detected and other tumours showed that the latter were more frequently mammogram-negative and CaN+. Overall five-year survival was 89% and five-year event-free survival 86%. Five-year event-free survival was 100% for CIS, 88% for invasive cancer without nodal or distant spread and 67% for CaN+. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancers arising in women at increased genetic risk of breast cancer can be detected by planned screening, even in those under age 50. Surveillance should include regular expert clinical examination and teaching of “breast awareness” as well as mammography. Attention to the logistics of screening programmes may improve still further the proportion of tumours that are screen-detected. The trend towards earlier pathological stage in tumours detected during follow-up rounds and the preliminary findings on survival analysis suggest that this approach will prove to be of long-term benefit for breast cancer families.


British Journal of Cancer | 2008

Prospective surveillance of women with a family history of breast cancer: auditing the risk threshold.

Elaine Anderson; Jonathan Berg; Roger Black; Nicola Bradshaw; Joyce Campbell; H Carnaghan; R Cetnarkyj; S Drummond; Rosemarie Davidson; Jacqueline Dunlop; Alison Fordyce; Barbara Gibbons; David Goudie; H Gregory; Susan Holloway; M Longmuir; Lorna McLeish; V Murday; Z Miedzybrodska; D Nicholson; P Pearson; Mary Porteous; Marta M. Reis; S Slater; K Smith; Elizabeth Smyth; L Snadden; Michael Steel; Diane Stirling; C Watt

To evaluate current guidelines criteria for inclusion of women in special ‘breast cancer family history’ surveillance programmes, records were reviewed of women referred to Scottish breast cancer family clinics between January 1994 and December 2003 but discharged as at ‘less than ‘moderate’ familial risk’. The Scottish Cancer Registry was then interrogated to determine subsequent age-specific incidence of breast cancer in this cohort and corresponding Scottish population figures. Among 2074 women, with an average follow-up of 4.0 years, 28 invasive breast cancers were recorded up to December 2003, where 14.4 were expected, a relative risk (RR) of 1.94. Eleven further breast cancers were recorded between January 2004 and February 2006 (ascertainment incomplete for this period). The overall RR for women in the study cohort exceeded the accepted ‘cutoff’ level (RR=1.7) for provision of special counselling and surveillance. The highest RR was found for the age group 45–59 years and this group also generated the majority of breast cancers. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (‘NICE’) guidelines appear to be more accurate than those of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (‘SIGN’) in defining ‘moderate’ familial risk, and longer follow-up of this cohort could generate an evidence base for further modification of familial breast cancer services.


Familial Cancer | 2006

Analysis of referrals to a multi-disciplinary breast cancer genetics clinic: practical and economic considerations

Marta M. Reis; Dorothy Young; Lorna McLeish; David Goudie; Alan Cook; Frank Sullivan; Helen Vysny; Alison Fordyce; Roger Black; Manouche Tavakoli; Michael Steel

Analysis of activity was undertaken in an established regional clinic providing risk assessment, counselling, screening and management for women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The objectives were to determine: (1) how closely the route and pattern of referrals matched official guidelines (2) whether the previously recorded socio-economic imbalance among clinic clientele persisted and (3) the economic and practical consequences of committing resources to verification and extension of reported family histories. The findings were: (1) after some years of operation, the proportion of referrals direct from primary care had increased from less than 50% to over 75%, with a concomitant slight decrease in overall referral rate; (2) the socio-economic distribution of patients referred had become less selective and (3) extension and verification of reported family histories led to a redistributuion of risk categories, increasing the proportion of referrals judged to be in the “low risk” category, from 25% (based on referral letter alone) to 41% (at the end of the process). The costs associated with this approach are offset by the savings generated and it allows specialised counselling and screening services to be targeted more efficiently.


Journal of Current Surgery | 2016

Assessing Outcomes After Breast Surgery: Patient and Clinician Reported Outcomes

Jane Kilkenny; D.C. Brown; Avril Gunning; Marta M. Reis; E. Jane Macaskill

Background: Survival has significantly improved in women diagnosed with breast cancer, and as a result, it has become increasingly important to assess the psychological outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Interpreting the outcome based on the opinion of the operating surgeons may not reflect the opinions of the patient. The aim of this study was to assess clinician and patient reported outcomes of breast surgery at routine follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients previously treated for breast cancer attending routine follow-up breast clinic over a period of 5 weeks were invited to participate. Patients were first seen by a clinician for review (four breast surgeons and one clinical nurse specialist), and cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Harris Harvard scale. Patient reported outcomes were measured using the Hopwood body image scale 10-item questionnaire. Results: Of 105 patients, complete data were available for 84 patients. All patients were female with a median age of 65 years (range 32 83 years). Wide local excisions accounted for 54% of all surgeries (n = 45), mastectomies 26% (n = 22) and mastectomy with reconstruction 20% (n = 17). Patients’ scores ranged from 0 to 30 with a median score of 1; 9% of patients had a score of > 10. Clinician rating was “excellent” for 37%, 34% as “very good”, 22% as “good” and 5.9% as “poor”. There was a weak correlation of patient scores to clinician score (Spearman rho: 0.219; 95% CI: 0.005 0.414; P = 0.045). Conclusions: With standard breast surgery, the majority of patients seen at follow-up clinics were satisfied with their cosmetic outcome, with the most favorable outcomes in patients who had undergone breast conservation, with mastectomy and reconstruction yielding the poorest results. Patient reported outcomes are not reflected in the clinician assessment of cosmesis.


Familial Cancer | 2008

Predicting breast cancer risk: implications of a “weak” family history

Elaine Anderson; Jonathan Berg; Roger Black; Nicola Bradshaw; Joyce Campbell; Roseanne Cetnarskyj; Sarah Drummond; Rosemarie Davidson; Jacqueline Dunlop; Alison Fordyce; Barbara Gibbons; David Goudie; Helen Gregory; Kirstie Hanning; Susan Holloway; Mark Longmuir; Lorna McLeish; Vicky Murday; Zosia Miedzybrodska; Donna Nicholson; Pauline Pearson; Mary Porteous; Marta M. Reis; Sheila Slater; Karen Smith; Elizabeth Smyth; Lesley Snadden; Michael Steel; Diane Stirling; Cathy Watt


British Journal of Cancer | 2006

Familial breast cancer: management of 'lower risk' referrals.

Dorothy Young; Lorna McLeish; Frank Sullivan; Marie Pitkethly; Marta M. Reis; David Goudie; H Vysny; Gozde Ozakinci; Michael Steel

Collaboration


Dive into the Marta M. Reis's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Fiona Lalloo

Imperial College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jaran Apold

Haukeland University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lovise Mæhle

Oslo University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Pål Møller

Oslo University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge