Sietske Riemersma

Laboratories of Pathology Eastern-Netherlands, Enschede, Overijssel, Netherlands

Are you Sietske Riemersma?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)7.16 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To analyze the incidence and prognostic factors of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) in a large, population-based, single-center study with long-term follow-up.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 08/2014; 89(5):1006-14. · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim is to look at the impact of margin status and outcome of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT). This manuscript describes an analysis on 330 BCT in 318 patients with ILC. The 12-year local relapse free survival (LRFS) is 89%. In multivariate analysis, positive margin status, age>50 years, contra lateral breast cancer, and adjuvant systemic therapy were significant predictors of local relapse free survival. In a separate analysis limited to a positive margin for invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ, only a positive margin for invasive carcinoma was a significant predictor of local relapse free survival. This was limited to women<or=50 years. The 12-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 85%. In multivariate Cox regression analysis grade 3 compared to grade 2 (HR 7.2), and a tumour size of pT2 (HR 2.5) were significant independent predictors of disease-specific survival (DFS). These factors were also relevant for distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Positive margins for invasive carcinoma seem to be a strong predictor for local recurrence in particular for women<or=50-years. Our study showed grade 3 and tumour size to be strong predictors of DMFS, DFS, and DSS. Margin status was not.
    European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 07/2009; 36(2):176-81. · 2.56 Impact Factor