Stephen W. Duffy

Prof. Stephen W. Duffy


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

37Years (1990-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2011 in Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LTLászló Tabár
László Tabár
BVBedrich Vitak
Bedrich Vitak
TCTony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
AYAmy Ming-Fang Yen
Amy Ming-Fang Yen
ACAnders Cohen
Anders Cohen
SDStephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy
The results of the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening are qualitatively the same at 29-year follow-up as when they were first published: A substantial and significant reduction in breast cancer mortality was associated with an invitation to screening. PurposeTo estimate the long-term (29-year) effect of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in terms of both relative and absolute effects.Materials and MethodsThis study was carried out under the auspices of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. The board determined that, because randomization was at a community level and was to invitation to screening, informed verbal consent could be given by the participants when they attended the screening examination. A total of 133 065 women aged 40–74 years residing in two Swedish counties were randomized into a group invited to mammographic screening and a control group receiving usual care. Case status and cause of death were determined by the local trial end point committees and, independently, by an external committee. Mortality analysis was performed by using negative binomial regression.ResultsThere was a highly significant reduction in breast cancer mortality in women invited to screening according to both local end point committee da...

11 May 2020 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SDStephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy
LTLászló Tabár
László Tabár
AYAmy Ming‐Fang Yen
Amy Ming‐Fang Yen
PDPeter B. Dean
Peter B. Dean
RSRobert A. Smith
Robert A. Smith
TCTony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Background: It is of paramount importance to evaluate the impact of participation in organized mammography service screening independently from changes in breast cancer treatment. This can be done by measuring the incidence of fatal breast cancer, which is based on the date of diagnosis and not on the date of death. Methods: Among 549,091 women, covering approximately 30% of the Swedish screening‐eligible population, the authors calculated the incidence rates of 2473 breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and the incidence rates of 9737 advanced breast cancers. Data regarding each breast cancer diagnosis and the cause and date of death of each breast cancer case were gathered from national Swedish registries. Tumor characteristics were collected from regional cancer centers. Aggregated data concerning invitation and participation were provided by Sectra Medical Systems AB. Incidence rates were analyzed using Poisson regression. Results: Women who participated in mammography screening had a statistically significant 41% reduction in their risk of dying of breast cancer within 10 years (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51‐0.68 [ P < .001]) and a 25% reduction in the rate of advanced breast cancers (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66‐0.84 [ P < .001]). Conclusions: Substantial reductions in the incidence rate of breast cancers that were fatal within 10 years after diagnosis and in the advanced breast cancer rate were found in this contemporaneous comparison of women participating versus those not participating in screening. These benefits appeared to be independent of recent changes in treatment regimens.

1 October 2013 in Breast Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SESuzanne A Eccles
Suzanne A Eccles
EAEric Ofori Aboagye
Eric Ofori Aboagye
SASimak Ali
Simak Ali
AAAnnie S Anderson
Annie S Anderson
JAJo Armes
Jo Armes
ATAlastair M Thompson
Alastair M Thompson
Introduction: Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. Methods: More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. Results: The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. Conclusions: With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

28 September 2014 in Breast Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AHAnthony Howell
Anthony Howell
AAAnnie S Anderson
Annie S Anderson
RCRobert B. Bryan Clarke
Robert B. Bryan Clarke
SDStephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy
D. Gareth EvansD. Gareth Evans
D. Gareth Evans
MMichelle Harvie
Michelle Harvie
Breast cancer is an increasing public health problem. Substantial advances have been made in the treatment of breast cancer, but the introduction of methods to predict women at elevated risk and prevent the disease has been less successful. Here, we summarize recent data on newer approaches to risk prediction, available approaches to prevention, how new approaches may be made, and the difficult problem of using what we already know to prevent breast cancer in populations. During 2012, the Breast Cancer Campaign facilitated a series of workshops, each covering a specialty area of breast cancer to identify gaps in our knowledge. The risk-and-prevention panel involved in this exercise was asked to expand and update its report and review recent relevant peer-reviewed literature. The enlarged position paper presented here highlights the key gaps in risk-and-prevention research that were identified, together with recommendations for action. The panel estimated from the relevant literature that potentially 50% of breast cancer could be prevented in the subgroup of women at high and moderate risk of breast cancer by using current chemoprevention (tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole) and that, in all women, lifestyle measures, including weight control, exercise, and moderating alcohol intake, could reduce breast cancer risk by about 30%. Risk may be estimated by standard models potentially with the addition of, for example, mammographic density and appropriate single-nucleotide polymorphisms. This review expands on four areas: (a) the prediction of breast cancer risk, (b) the evidence for the effectiveness of preventive therapy and lifestyle approaches to prevention, (c) how understanding the biology of the breast may lead to new targets for prevention, and (d) a summary of published guidelines for preventive approaches and measures required for their implementation. We hope that efforts to fill these and other gaps will lead to considerable advances in our efforts to predict risk and prevent breast cancer over the next 10 years.

1 September 2020 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SDStephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy
DVDaniel Vulkan
Daniel Vulkan
HCHoward Cuckle
Howard Cuckle
DPDharmishta Parmar
Dharmishta Parmar
SSShama Sheikh
Shama Sheikh
SMSue M Moss
Sue M Moss
The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate. We aimed to estimate the effect of mammographic screening at ages 40–48 years on breast cancer mortality. We did a randomised, controlled trial involving 23 breast screening units across Great Britain. We randomly assigned women aged 39–41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2 ratio, to yearly mammographic screening from the year of inclusion in the trial up to and including the calendar year that they reached age 48 years (intervention group), or to standard care of no screening until the invitation to their first National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) screen at approximately age 50 years (control group). Women in the intervention group were recruited by postal invitation. Women in the control group were unaware of the study. The primary endpoint was mortality from breast cancers (with breast cancer coded as the underlying cause of death) diagnosed during the intervention period, before the participant's first NHSBSP screen. To study the timing of the mortality effect, we analysed the results in different follow-up periods. Women were included in the primary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis). This Article reports on long-term follow-up analysis. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN24647151. 160 921 women were recruited between Oct 14, 1990, and Sept 24, 1997. 53 883 women (33·5%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 106 953 (66·5%) to the control group. Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up for a median of 22·8 years (IQR 21·8–24·0). We observed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up, with 83 breast cancer deaths in the intervention group versus 219 in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·58–0·97]; p=0·029). No significant reduction was observed thereafter, with 126 deaths versus 255 deaths occurring after more than 10 years of follow-up (RR 0·98 [0·79–1·22]; p=0·86). Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or 41 years, was associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years, although the absolute reduction remained constant. Reducing the lower age limit for screening from 50 to 40 years could potentially reduce breast cancer mortality. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

15 April 2020 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ADAmanda Dibden
Amanda Dibden
JOJudith Offman
Judith Offman
SDStephen W. Duffy
Stephen W. Duffy
RGRhian Gabe
Rhian Gabe
In 2012, the Euroscreen project published a review of incidence-based mortality evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes. In this paper, we update this review to October 2019 and expand its scope from Europe to worldwide. We carried out a systematic review of incidence-based mortality studies of breast cancer screening programmes, and a meta-analysis of the estimated effects of both invitation to screening and attendance at screening, with adjustment for self-selection bias, on incidence-based mortality from breast cancer. We found 27 valid studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant 22% reduction in breast cancer mortality with invitation to screening, with a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75–0.82), and a significant 33% reduction with actual attendance at screening (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61–0.75). Breast cancer screening in the routine healthcare setting continues to confer a substantial reduction in mortality from breast cancer.