Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 120, Issue 1, pp 161–163 | Cite as

Breast cancer hormone receptor status in Egypt: are we asking the questions that matter most?

  • Benjamin O. Anderson
Invited commentary

Drs. Dey, Soliman and colleagues have produced a valuable breast cancer study based on an analysis of the Gharbiah population-based cancer registry in Tanta, Egypt, a region located 90 kilometers north of Cairo in the Nile Delta Region [1]. Founded in 1998 through the Middle East Cancer Consortium (MECC), the Gharbiah registry represents an important new information source regarding cancer demographics in a major Middle Eastern population. This is a well executed study which presents some interesting data on hormone receptor status among Egyptian breast cancer cases. The investigators compared breast cancer incidence among patients in urban (62%) vs. rural (38%) areas and looked for differences in the biological features of breast cancers diagnosed between 2001 and 2006. They observed that among 3,673 cases, the incidence of estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers was 2–4 times higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Why would ER+ breast cancer be more commonly diagnosed in...


Breast Cancer Urban Region Hormone Receptor Status Adjuvant Tamoxifen Seek Health Care 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Dey S, Soliman AS, Hablas A, Seifeldin IA, Ismail K, Ramadan M et al. (2009) Urban-rural differences in breast cancer incidence by hormone receptor status across 6 years in Egypt. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0427-9
  2. 2.
    Chopra R (2001) The Indian scene. J Clin Oncol 19(Suppl 18):106S–111SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yip CH, Smith RA, Anderson BO, Miller AB, Thomas DB, Ang ES et al (2008) Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: early detection resource allocation. Cancer 113(Suppl 8):2244–2256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris GJ, Naidu S, Topham AK, Guiles F, Xu Y, McCue P et al (2007) Differences in breast carcinoma characteristics in newly diagnosed African-American and Caucasian patients: a single-institution compilation compared with the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cancer 110(4):876–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson WF, Chu KC, Chatterjee N, Brawley O, Brinton LA (2001) Tumor variants by hormone receptor expression in white patients with node-negative breast cancer from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. J Clin Oncol 19(1):18–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li CI, Daling JR, Malone KE (2003) Incidence of invasive breast cancer by hormone receptor status from 1992 to 1998. J Clin Oncol 21(1):28–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shyyan R, Sener SF, Anderson BO, Garrote LM, Hortobagyi GN, Ibarra JA Jr et al (2008) Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: diagnosis resource allocation. Cancer 113(Suppl 8):2257–2268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (2001) Tamoxifen for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD000486. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000486

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Breast Health Global InitiativeFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations