Cancer3.AI › Body Map › Breast › Invasive Breast Carcinoma

Invasive Breast Carcinoma

C50WHO Vol. 2
Breast

Key facts

New cases per year
US: est. 321,910 in women (2026, SEER); worldwide: 2.4 million (2024, WHO)
5-year relative survival
91.9% overall; localized 100%, regional 87.5%, distant 33.8% (SEER, 2016–2022)
Main risk factors
Female sex and advancing age; also family history, obesity, alcohol, radiation exposure, postmenopausal hormone therapy — yet about 80% of cases occur with no risk factor other than sex and age (WHO)
Screening
Mammography — the standard screening test, shown to reduce deaths from breast cancer (NCI PDQ)
Median age at diagnosis
64 years (US, SEER)
Lifetime risk
About 13% of US women (SEER, 2021–2023 data)

Invasive breast carcinoma is a malignant tumor that starts in breast tissue — most often in the milk ducts, less often in the lobules — and has grown beyond its site of origin into surrounding breast tissue, from where it can spread to nearby lymph nodes or distant organs. The most common type is invasive ductal carcinoma; invasive lobular carcinoma, which begins in the milk-producing lobules, is less frequent. Invasive cancer is distinguished from carcinoma in situ (such as DCIS), in which abnormal cells remain confined within the ducts or lobules. Many invasive breast cancers are first found by screening mammography before any symptoms appear; when symptoms occur, the most common is a painless breast lump, sometimes with changes in the breast's shape, skin, or nipple. The diagnosis is confirmed by a biopsy of the suspicious tissue.

Prognosis

The outlook in invasive breast cancer depends strongly on the stage at diagnosis. In US SEER data (2016–2022), 5-year relative survival for female breast cancer is 91.9% overall: about 100% when the cancer is confined to the breast (localized), 87.5% when it involves nearby lymph nodes or structures (regional), and 33.8% when it has spread to distant organs. Most US cases (64%) are found at the localized stage, which screening makes more likely. These figures are population statistics drawn from large groups of patients diagnosed in the past; they describe averages, not any individual person, whose course also depends on the cancer's biological subtype, response to treatment, overall health, and advances in therapy since the data were collected.

🔬 Histological Types

📚 Latest Research

2026-09-10

Mass-Forming Ductal Carcinoma In Situ >10 mm on Ultrasonography: Sonographic-Pathological Correlation Underlying Mass Formation and Implications for Invasion Assessment.

Michishita Y, et al

A retrospective study of 52 surgically confirmed breast DCIS cases presenting as masses larger than 10 mm on ultrasound identified three distinct sonographic-pathological patterns — intracystic (9/52, 17.3%), clustered outline (34/52, 65.4%), and sclerosing stromal (7/52, 13.5%) — and found that background sclerosis, especially the sclerosing stromal pattern, is the chief driver of false-positive invasion suspicion on imaging. Preoperative ultrasound incorrectly suggested invasive carcinoma in 26 of 52 cases (50.0%), with the sclerosing stromal pattern carrying the highest rate of suspected invasion (6/7, 85.7%), followed by the clustered outline pattern (17/34, 50.0%) and the intracystic pattern (2/9, 22.2%). Histological contributors to invasion-mimicking appearances included background sclerosing adenosis, radial sclerosing lesion, inflammatory changes, and fibrosis. Awareness of these three patterns may help radiologists avoid overestimating tumour stage and improve preoperative surgical planning for patients with large-mass DCIS.

Ultrasound in medicine & biology

Source →
2026-09-10 • AI

Measuring Radiologist Workload After AI Triage in Breast Cancer Screening.

Sorin V, et al

A new session-level reporting standard is proposed to more accurately quantify radiologist workload following AI triage in breast cancer screening, replacing simple reading counts with total active human interpretation minutes per 1,000 women screened. The authors argue that reading count alone fails to reveal how much radiologist time is genuinely saved or whether work is merely displaced to arbitration, consensus review, or other downstream tasks. To measure these effects rigorously, the paper also introduces a matched-session study design that directly compares workload before and after AI integration. The framework aims to give screening programmes a practical, reproducible tool for evaluating the true impact of AI on clinical workflow and diagnostic outcomes.

Academic radiology

Source →
2026-09-10

Interval Invasive Cancers in Population Screening: A Meta-analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Digital Mammography.

Ferre R, et al

A meta-analysis of 13 comparative studies encompassing more than 1.4 million screening examinations — 548,368 with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and 859,256 with standard digital mammography (DM), yielding 4,370 invasive interval breast cancers — found that DBT does not meaningfully reduce the incidence of invasive interval breast cancers compared with DM. This null result was consistent across randomized trials and observational cohorts alike, and descriptive subgroup analyses by screening interval (annual versus nonannual) revealed no meaningful difference between the two modalities. The findings suggest that the improved mammographic lesion conspicuity offered by DBT does not substantially affect cancers that are biologically aggressive, rapidly developing, or mammographically occult. Clinicians and health-policy makers should note that while DBT may confer other detection benefits, adopting it is unlikely to reduce the burden of interval cancers diagnosed between scheduled screening rounds.

Academic radiology

Source →
1 / 24 (71)

See all (71) →

💊 Therapies

Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy
Targeted therapies
Hormone therapy
Other local treatment methods

🥗 Diet

Mediterranean diet Fasting and fasting-mimicking diets during chemotherapy Alcohol and cancer risk Sugar and cancer - what the evidence shows Excess body fatness and cancer risk Non-starchy vegetables and fruit

🫙 Supplements

Vitamin D St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) Curcumin Selenium American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) for cancer-related fatigue Soy and soy isoflavones in breast cancer Ginger (Zingiber officinale) for chemotherapy-induced nausea Melatonin during cancer treatment Green tea and EGCG Antioxidant supplements during chemotherapy and radiotherapy Laetrile (amygdalin, so-called vitamin B17) Milk thistle (silymarin) Coenzyme Q10 (ubiquinone) Calcium and vitamin D during hormonal therapy (bone protection) Alpha-lipoic acid and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) Echinacea Aloe vera

🧪 Tumor markers

Cancer antigen 15-3 / CA 27.29

💬 Discussion Forum

Coming Soon

Join the discussion about this topic (login required)

Log In

🩺 Centers for this diagnosis

Show all centers for this diagnosis (75) ›
See all › Outpatient clinics for this diagnosis (60) ›

Sources

  1. NCI SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer ↗
  2. NCI: What Is Breast Cancer? ↗
  3. NCI PDQ: Breast Cancer Screening (Patient Version) ↗
  4. WHO Fact Sheet: Breast Cancer ↗