1
|
John EM, Koo J, Phipps AI, Longacre TA, Kurian AW, Ingles SA, Wu AH, Hines LM. Reproductive characteristics, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, and risk of breast cancer subtypes defined by ER, PR and HER2 status: the Breast Cancer Etiology in Minorities study. Breast Cancer Res 2024; 26:88. [PMID: 38822357 PMCID: PMC11143591 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-024-01834-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 06/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Associations between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer differ by subtype defined by joint estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 expression status. Racial and ethnic differences in the incidence of breast cancer subtypes suggest etiologic heterogeneity, yet data are limited because most studies have included non-Hispanic White women only. METHODS We analyzed harmonized data for 2,794 breast cancer cases and 4,579 controls, of whom 90% self-identified as African American, Asian American or Hispanic. Questionnaire data were pooled from three population-based studies conducted in California and data on tumor characteristics were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. The study sample included 1,530 luminal A (ER-positive and/or PR-positive, HER2-negative), 442 luminal B (ER-positive and/or PR-positive, HER2-positive), 578 triple-negative (TN; ER-negative, PR-negative, HER2-negative), and 244 HER2-enriched (ER-negative, PR-negative, HER2-positive) cases. We used multivariable unconditional logistic regression models to estimate subtype-specific ORs and 95% confidence intervals associated with parity, breast-feeding, and other reproductive characteristics by menopausal status and race and ethnicity. RESULTS Subtype-specific associations with reproductive factors revealed some notable differences by menopausal status and race and ethnicity. Specifically, higher parity without breast-feeding was associated with higher risk of luminal A and TN subtypes among premenopausal African American women. In contrast, among Asian American and Hispanic women, regardless of menopausal status, higher parity with a breast-feeding history was associated with lower risk of luminal A subtype. Among premenopausal women only, luminal A subtype was associated with older age at first full-term pregnancy (FTP), longer interval between menarche and first FTP, and shorter interval since last FTP, with similar OR estimates across the three racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS Subtype-specific associations with reproductive factors overall and by menopausal status, and race and ethnicity, showed some differences, underscoring that understanding etiologic heterogeneity in racially and ethnically diverse study samples is essential. Breast-feeding is likely the only reproductive factor that is potentially modifiable. Targeted efforts to promote and facilitate breast-feeding could help mitigate the adverse effects of higher parity among premenopausal African American women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther M John
- Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
- Stanford University School of Medicine, 3145 Porter Drive, Suite E223, Palo Alto, CA, 94504, USA.
| | - Jocelyn Koo
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA
| | - Amanda I Phipps
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
- Epidemiology Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA
| | - Teri A Longacre
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA
- Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA
| | - Sue A Ingles
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA
| | - Anna H Wu
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA
| | - Lisa M Hines
- Department of Biology, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, 80918, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Phung MT, Lee AW, McLean K, Anton-Culver H, Bandera EV, Carney ME, Chang-Claude J, Cramer DW, Doherty JA, Fortner RT, Goodman MT, Harris HR, Jensen A, Modugno F, Moysich KB, Pharoah PDP, Qin B, Terry KL, Titus LJ, Webb PM, Wu AH, Zeinomar N, Ziogas A, Berchuck A, Cho KR, Hanley GE, Meza R, Mukherjee B, Pike MC, Pearce CL, Trabert B. A framework for assessing interactions for risk stratification models: the example of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2023; 115:1420-1426. [PMID: 37436712 PMCID: PMC10637032 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/30/2023] [Indexed: 07/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Generally, risk stratification models for cancer use effect estimates from risk/protective factor analyses that have not assessed potential interactions between these exposures. We have developed a 4-criterion framework for assessing interactions that includes statistical, qualitative, biological, and practical approaches. We present the application of this framework in an ovarian cancer setting because this is an important step in developing more accurate risk stratification models. Using data from 9 case-control studies in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of interactions among 15 unequivocal risk and protective factors for ovarian cancer (including 14 non-genetic factors and a 36-variant polygenic score) with age and menopausal status. Pairwise interactions between the risk/protective factors were also assessed. We found that menopausal status modifies the association among endometriosis, first-degree family history of ovarian cancer, breastfeeding, and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate use and disease risk, highlighting the importance of understanding multiplicative interactions when developing risk prediction models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Minh Tung Phung
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Alice W Lee
- Department of Public Health, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA
| | - Karen McLean
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Elm & Carlton Streets, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Hoda Anton-Culver
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Elisa V Bandera
- Cancer Epidemiology and Health Outcomes, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Michael E Carney
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Daniel W Cramer
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer Anne Doherty
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Renee T Fortner
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
| | - Marc T Goodman
- Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cancer Prevention and Genetics Program, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Community and Population Health Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Holly R Harris
- Program in Epidemiology, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Allan Jensen
- Department of Lifestyle, Reproduction and Cancer, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Francesmary Modugno
- Women’s Cancer Research Center, Magee-Women’s Research Institute and Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburg, PA, USA
| | - Kirsten B Moysich
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Bo Qin
- Cancer Epidemiology and Health Outcomes, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Kathryn L Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Linda J Titus
- Public Health, Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME, USA
| | - Penelope M Webb
- Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Anna H Wu
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nur Zeinomar
- Cancer Epidemiology and Health Outcomes, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Argyrios Ziogas
- Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Andrew Berchuck
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Kathleen R Cho
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Gillian E Hanley
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Rafael Meza
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Bhramar Mukherjee
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Malcolm C Pike
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Celeste Leigh Pearce
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Britton Trabert
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Cancer Control and Populations Sciences Program, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abu Abeelh E, AbuAbeileh Z. Impact of Mammography Screening Frequency on Breast Cancer Mortality Rates. Cureus 2023; 15:e49066. [PMID: 38125213 PMCID: PMC10730471 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/19/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
The frequency of mammography screening remains a topic of ongoing debate. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of annual vs. biennial mammography screenings on breast cancer mortality rates. A comprehensive search of relevant literature published up to 2021 was performed, with the primary outcome being the difference in breast cancer mortality rates between annual and biennial screenings. The extracted data included relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with studies selected based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, emphasizing the quality of methodology and minimization of bias. Of the included studies, thirteen met the criteria, covering diverse demographic cohorts and screening frequencies. The synthesized data revealed a pattern of lower relative risk in annual screenings compared to biennial screenings across all studies. Notably, subgroup analyses indicated that age and racial background might modulate the effectiveness of screening frequency. In conclusion, this meta-analysis offers strong evidence suggesting that annual mammography screenings could be more effective than biennial screenings in reducing breast cancer mortality rates, especially in certain high-risk demographics. The results emphasize the importance of personalized, evidence-based approaches to mammography, with a call for future research to validate these findings and delve deeper into optimizing breast cancer screening strategies.
Collapse
|
4
|
Hvidtfeldt UA, Chen J, Rodopoulou S, Strak M, de Hoogh K, Andersen ZJ, Bellander T, Brandt J, Fecht D, Forastiere F, Gulliver J, Hertel O, Hoffmann BH, Katsouyanni K, Ketzel M, Brynedal B, Leander K, Ljungman PLS, Magnusson PKE, Nagel G, Pershagen G, Rizzuto D, Boutron-Ruault MC, Samoli E, So R, Stafoggia M, Tjønneland A, Vermeulen R, Verschuren WMM, Weinmayr G, Wolf K, Zhang J, Zitt E, Brunekreef B, Hoek G, Raaschou-Nielsen O. Breast Cancer Incidence in Relation to Long-Term Low-Level Exposure to Air Pollution in the ELAPSE Pooled Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023; 32:105-113. [PMID: 36215200 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-22-0720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Revised: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Established risk factors for breast cancer include genetic disposition, reproductive factors, hormone therapy, and lifestyle-related factors such as alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, smoking, and obesity. More recently a role of environmental exposures, including air pollution, has also been suggested. The aim of this study, was to investigate the relationship between long-term air pollution exposure and breast cancer incidence. METHODS We conducted a pooled analysis among six European cohorts (n = 199,719) on the association between long-term residential levels of ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particles (PM2.5), black carbon (BC), and ozone in the warm season (O3) and breast cancer incidence in women. The selected cohorts represented the lower range of air pollutant concentrations in Europe. We applied Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for potential confounders at the individual and area-level. RESULTS During 3,592,885 person-years of follow-up, we observed a total of 9,659 incident breast cancer cases. The results of the fully adjusted linear analyses showed a HR (95% confidence interval) of 1.03 (1.00-1.06) per 10 μg/m³ NO2, 1.06 (1.01-1.11) per 5 μg/m³ PM2.5, 1.03 (0.99-1.06) per 0.5 10-5 m-1 BC, and 0.98 (0.94-1.01) per 10 μg/m³ O3. The effect estimates were most pronounced in the group of middle-aged women (50-54 years) and among never smokers. CONCLUSIONS The results were in support of an association between especially PM2.5 and breast cancer. IMPACT The findings of this study suggest a role of exposure to NO2, PM2.5, and BC in development of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jie Chen
- Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sophia Rodopoulou
- Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Maciej Strak
- Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
| | - Kees de Hoogh
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Zorana J Andersen
- Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Tom Bellander
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Centre for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jørgen Brandt
- Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.,iClimate - interdisciplinary Centre for Climate Change, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
| | - Daniela Fecht
- MRC Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Francesco Forastiere
- Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service/ASL Roma 1, Rome, Italy.,Environmental Research Group, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - John Gulliver
- MRC Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.,Centre for Environmental Health and Sustainability & School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Ole Hertel
- Departments of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
| | - Barbara H Hoffmann
- Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Klea Katsouyanni
- Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,MRC Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matthias Ketzel
- Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.,Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
| | - Boel Brynedal
- Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Karin Leander
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Petter L S Ljungman
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Cardiology, Danderyd University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Patrik K E Magnusson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gabriele Nagel
- Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
| | - Göran Pershagen
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Centre for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Debora Rizzuto
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.,Stockholm Gerontology Research Center, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Evangelia Samoli
- Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Rina So
- Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Massimo Stafoggia
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Region Health Service/ASL Roma 1, Rome, Italy
| | - Anne Tjønneland
- Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Roel Vermeulen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - W M Monique Verschuren
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.,Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Gudrun Weinmayr
- Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
| | - Kathrin Wolf
- Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Jiawei Zhang
- Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Emanuel Zitt
- Agency for Preventive and Social Medicine (aks), Bregenz, Austria.,Department of Internal Medicine 3, LKH Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria
| | - Bert Brunekreef
- Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Gerard Hoek
- Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ole Raaschou-Nielsen
- Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lowry KP, Geuzinge HA, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Hampton J, Kerlikowske K, de Koning HJ, Miglioretti DL, van Ravesteyn NT, Schechter C, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Trentham-Dietz A, Weaver D, Yaffe MJ, Yeh JM, Couch FJ, Hu C, Kraft P, Polley EC, Mandelblatt JS, Kurian AW, Robson ME. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: A Comparative Modeling Analysis. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:587-596. [PMID: 35175286 PMCID: PMC8855312 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women. OBJECTIVE To estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985. INTERVENTIONS Screening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges. RESULTS The mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn P. Lowry
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle
| | - H. Amarens Geuzinge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Natasha K. Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison
| | - John Hampton
- Carbone Cancer Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Harry J. de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Diana L. Miglioretti
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis
| | | | - Clyde Schechter
- Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Brian L. Sprague
- Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington
- Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington
| | - Anna N. A. Tosteson
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Carbone Cancer Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison
| | - Donald Weaver
- Department of Pathology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington
| | - Martin J. Yaffe
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer M. Yeh
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Fergus J. Couch
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York
| | - Chunling Hu
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Eric C. Polley
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Allison W. Kurian
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Mark E. Robson
- Department of Breast Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Akinyemiju T, Oyekunle T, Salako O, Gupta A, Alatise O, Ogun G, Adeniyi A, Deveaux A, Hall A, Ayandipo O, Olajide T, Olasehinde O, Arowolo O, Adisa A, Afuwape O, Olusanya A, Adegoke A, Tollefsbol TO, Arnett D, Muehlbauer MJ, Newgard CB, Daramola A. Metabolic Syndrome and Risk of Breast Cancer by Molecular Subtype: Analysis of the MEND Study. Clin Breast Cancer 2021; 22:e463-e472. [PMID: 34980540 PMCID: PMC9641637 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Revised: 11/06/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of biological irregularities that is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes. In a case-control study of 555 West African women, we observed that metabolic syndrome was strongly associated with breast cancer and the aggressive triple-negative molecular subtype, highlighting a need for clinical and lifestyle interventions targeting metabolic syndrome to reduce breast cancer risk in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomi Akinyemiju
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC; Duke Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC.
| | - Taofik Oyekunle
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Omolola Salako
- College of Medicine and Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Anjali Gupta
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Olusegun Alatise
- Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
| | - Gabriel Ogun
- Unversity College Hospital, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
| | | | - April Deveaux
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Allison Hall
- Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Omobolaji Ayandipo
- Unversity College Hospital, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
| | - Thomas Olajide
- College of Medicine and Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
| | | | - Olukayode Arowolo
- Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
| | - Adewale Adisa
- Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
| | - Oludolapo Afuwape
- Unversity College Hospital, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
| | - Aralola Olusanya
- Unversity College Hospital, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
| | - Aderemi Adegoke
- Our Lady of Apostle Catholic Hospital, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
| | | | - Donna Arnett
- College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
| | - Michael J Muehlbauer
- Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | - Christopher B Newgard
- Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC
| | -
- University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
| | - Adetola Daramola
- College of Medicine and Lagos University Teaching Hospital, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria; University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Gao C, Polley EC, Hart SN, Huang H, Hu C, Gnanaolivu R, Lilyquist J, Boddicker NJ, Na J, Ambrosone CB, Auer PL, Bernstein L, Burnside ES, Eliassen AH, Gaudet MM, Haiman C, Hunter DJ, Jacobs EJ, John EM, Lindström S, Ma H, Neuhausen SL, Newcomb PA, O'Brien KM, Olson JE, Ong IM, Patel AV, Palmer JR, Sandler DP, Tamimi R, Taylor JA, Teras LR, Trentham-Dietz A, Vachon CM, Weinberg CR, Yao S, Weitzel JN, Goldgar DE, Domchek SM, Nathanson KL, Couch FJ, Kraft P. Risk of Breast Cancer Among Carriers of Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes Varies by Polygenic Risk Score. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:2564-2573. [PMID: 34101481 PMCID: PMC8330969 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.01992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2020] [Revised: 02/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study assessed the joint association of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes and polygenic risk scores (PRS) with BC in the general population. METHODS A total of 26,798 non-Hispanic white BC cases and 26,127 controls from predominately population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium were evaluated for PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, and NF1. PRS based on 105 common variants were created using effect estimates from BC genome-wide association studies; the performance of an overall BC PRS and estrogen receptor-specific PRS were evaluated. The odds of BC based on the PVs and PRS were estimated using penalized logistic regression. The results were combined with age-specific incidence rates to estimate 5-year and lifetime absolute risks of BC across percentiles of PRS by PV status and first-degree family history of BC. RESULTS The estimated lifetime risks of BC among general-population noncarriers, based on 10th and 90th percentiles of PRS, were 9.1%-23.9% and 6.7%-18.2% for women with or without first-degree relatives with BC, respectively. Taking PRS into account, more than 95% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 carriers had > 20% lifetime risks of BC, whereas, respectively, 52.5% and 69.7% of ATM and CHEK2 carriers without first-degree relatives with BC, and 78.8% and 89.9% of those with a first-degree relative with BC had > 20% risk. CONCLUSION PRS facilitates personalization of BC risk among carriers of PVs in predisposition genes. Incorporating PRS into BC risk estimation may help identify > 30% of CHEK2 and nearly half of ATM carriers below the 20% lifetime risk threshold, suggesting the addition of PRS may prevent overscreening and enable more personalized risk management approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi Gao
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | | | | | - Hongyan Huang
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | | | | - Jie Na
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Paul L. Auer
- UWM Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, Milwaukee, WI
| | | | | | - A. Heather Eliassen
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Mia M. Gaudet
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | - Christopher Haiman
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - David J. Hunter
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
- University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Eric J. Jacobs
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | | | - Sara Lindström
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | | | - Polly A. Newcomb
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | | - Alpa V. Patel
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | - Julie R. Palmer
- Boston University School of Medicine and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA
| | - Dale P. Sandler
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC
| | - Rulla Tamimi
- Population Health Sciences Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Jack A. Taylor
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC
| | - Lauren R. Teras
- Department of Population Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
| | | | | | | | - Song Yao
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
| | | | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Peter Kraft
- Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
White AJ. Invited Perspective: Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Risk: Current State of the Evidence and Next Steps. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 2021; 129:51302. [PMID: 34038219 PMCID: PMC8312482 DOI: 10.1289/ehp9466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra J. White
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Khan SA, Hernandez-Villafuerte KV, Muchadeyi MT, Schlander M. Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review. Int J Cancer 2021; 149:790-810. [PMID: 33844853 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shah Alam Khan
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | | | - Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Michael Schlander
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Palmer JR, Polley EC, Hu C, John EM, Haiman C, Hart SN, Gaudet M, Pal T, Anton-Culver H, Trentham-Dietz A, Bernstein L, Ambrosone CB, Bandera EV, Bertrand KA, Bethea TN, Gao C, Gnanaolivu RD, Huang H, Lee KY, LeMarchand L, Na J, Sandler DP, Shah PD, Yadav S, Yang W, Weitzel JN, Domchek SM, Goldgar DE, Nathanson KL, Kraft P, Yao S, Couch FJ. Contribution of Germline Predisposition Gene Mutations to Breast Cancer Risk in African American Women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112:1213-1221. [PMID: 32427313 PMCID: PMC7735769 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 01/27/2020] [Accepted: 03/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. METHODS Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. RESULTS Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie R Palmer
- Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA
| | - Eric C Polley
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Chunling Hu
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Health Research & Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Christopher Haiman
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
| | - Steven N Hart
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Mia Gaudet
- Epidemiology Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA
| | - Tuya Pal
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | | | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, USA
| | - Leslie Bernstein
- Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope, Duarte, CA 91010, USA
| | - Christine B Ambrosone
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA
| | - Elisa V Bandera
- Cancer Epidemiology and Health Outcomes, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
| | - Kimberly A Bertrand
- Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA
| | - Traci N Bethea
- Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA
| | - Chi Gao
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Rohan D Gnanaolivu
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Hongyan Huang
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Kun Y Lee
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Loic LeMarchand
- Population Sciences in the Pacific Program (Cancer Epidemiology), University of Hawaii Cancer Center Honolulu, HI 96813, USA
| | - Jie Na
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
| | - Payal D Shah
- Abramson Cancer Center and Basser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; and 16Department of Dermatology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
| | - Siddhartha Yadav
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - William Yang
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Jeffrey N Weitzel
- Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope, Duarte, CA 91010, USA
| | - Susan M Domchek
- Abramson Cancer Center and Basser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; and 16Department of Dermatology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
| | - David E Goldgar
- Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, and Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | - Katherine L Nathanson
- Abramson Cancer Center and Basser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; and 16Department of Dermatology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
| | - Peter Kraft
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Song Yao
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Fergus J Couch
- Departments of Health Sciences Research, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Diaz-Santana MV, O'Brien KM, D'Aloisio AA, Regalado G, Sandler DP, Weinberg CR. Perinatal and postnatal exposures and risk of young-onset breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2020; 22:88. [PMID: 32791983 PMCID: PMC7427289 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01317-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Perinatal factors have been associated with some adult health outcomes, but have not been well studied in young-onset breast cancer. We aimed to evaluate the association between young-onset breast cancer and perinatal exposures and to explore etiologic heterogeneity in the relationship between associated perinatal factors and estrogen receptor status of the tumor. Methods We addressed this in a sister-matched case-control study. Cases were women who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer before the age of 50. Each case had a sister control who was free of breast cancer up to the same age at which her case sister developed the disease. The factors considered were self-reported and included the mother’s preeclampsia in that pregnancy, mother’s smoking in that pregnancy, gestational hypertension, prenatal diethylstilbestrol use, and gestational diabetes, as well as low birth weight (less than 5.5 pounds), high birth weight (greater than 8.8 pounds), short gestational length (less than 38 completed weeks), and being breastfed or being fed soy formula. Results In conditional logistic regression analyses, high birth weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–2.36) and preeclampsia (adjusted OR = 1.92, CI 0.824–4.5162) were positively associated with risk. The association with preeclampsia was stronger when the analysis was restricted to invasive breast cancer (OR = 2.87, CI 1.08–7.59). We also used case-only analyses to assess etiologic heterogeneity for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive versus estrogen receptor-negative cancer. Women who were born to a preeclamptic pregnancy and later developed young-onset breast cancer were at increased odds for the ER-negative type (OR = 2.27; CI 1.05–4.92). Conclusion These results suggest that being born to a preeclamptic pregnancy may increase risk for young-onset breast cancer, especially for the ER-negative subtype.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary V Diaz-Santana
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Katie M O'Brien
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Aimee A D'Aloisio
- Social and Scientific Systems, Inc., 4505 Emperor Blvd, Suite 400, Durham, NC, 27703, USA
| | - Gloria Regalado
- Institute for Advanced Analytics, North Carolina State University, 901 Main Campus Drive, Suite 230, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Clarice R Weinberg
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Aznag FZ, Elouilamine E, Korrida A, Izaabel EH. Polymorphisms in the Tumor Necrosis Factor Genes Are Associated with Breast Cancer in the Moroccan Population. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2020; 24:592-599. [PMID: 32735459 DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2020.0073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The multifunctional cytokines of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) family have been found to be involved in the promotion of inflammatory responses, and to play critical roles in the pathogenesis of inflammatory, autoimmune, and malignant diseases. The aim of the present study was to assess the associations among the TNFα -238 G > A (rs361525), TNFα -308 G > A (rs1800629), and TNFβ +252 A>G (rs909253) polymorphisms, and the breast cancer (BC) susceptibility in the Moroccan population. Materials and Methods: We conducted a case-control study, including 492 participants made up of 264 pathologically confirmed BC subjects, and 228 healthy women as controls. The samples were genotyped by means of polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analyses. Results: The TNFα -238 G > A and TNFα -308 G > A polymorphisms were significantly associated with increased risk of BC for the AA genotype, while, the AG genotype of TNFβ +252 A>G may offer a protective effect in this population. Haplotypic analyses showed that the GAA and AAG haplotypes increased the risk significantly for BC. Moreover, a significant association was observed between polymorphisms at the TNFα -238 A>G locus and the clinical profiles of the patients with regard to their estrogen-and progesterone-positive receptor status. Conclusion: These findings indicate that TNF gene polymorphisms are linked with the risk of BC in the Moroccan population. Further studies implementing a larger sample size are needed to support our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fatima Zahra Aznag
- Laboratory of Cellular Biology and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco
| | - Ezohra Elouilamine
- Laboratory of Cellular Biology and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco
| | - Amal Korrida
- Laboratory of Cellular Biology and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco.,Higher Institute of Nursing Professions and Health Techniques of Agadir, Ministry of Health, Agadir, Morocco
| | - El Hassan Izaabel
- Laboratory of Cellular Biology and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Akinyemiju T, Salako O, Daramola A, Alatise O, Adeniyi A, Ogun G, Ayandipo O, Olajide T, Olasehinde O, Arowolo O, Adisa A, Afuwape O, Olusanya A, Adegoke A, Ojo A, Tollefsbol T, Arnett D. Collaborative Molecular Epidemiology Study of Metabolic Dysregulation, DNA Methylation, and Breast Cancer Risk Among Nigerian Women: MEND Study Objectives and Design. J Glob Oncol 2020; 5:1-9. [PMID: 31194608 PMCID: PMC6613666 DOI: 10.1200/jgo.18.00226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To elucidate the role of metabolic dysregulation and associated DNA methylation changes on breast cancer risk and aggressive subtypes among Nigerian women. We describe the design and methods of a collaborative molecular epidemiology study of breast cancer in Nigerian hospitals. METHODS The Mechanisms for Novel and Established Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Women of Nigerian Descent (MEND) study was designed as a matched case-control study of 350 patients, age 18 to 75 years, with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve breast cancer and 350 age-matched healthy controls from surrounding geographic areas. Patients with breast cancer seen for initial diagnosis at four large tertiary hospitals in southwest Nigeria and one affiliated private hospital were recruited. Healthy female controls were selected from a cohort of 4,000 healthy women recruited as part of the Human Heredity and Health (H3) in Africa Chronic Kidney Disease Case-Control Study in Nigeria. Tumor and adjacent normal tissue, and blood and saliva samples were collected for molecular and epigenetic assays. RESULTS Although recruitment is ongoing, a total of 416 patients have been recruited to date, with tumor and blood samples obtained from at least 310 patients. Data on age-matched (± 6 months) controls have also been obtained and harmonized. Lipid assays for 350 pathologically verified cases and 350 age-matched controls is underway, and pathologic characterization of tumors (including immunohistochemistry for subtyping) is ongoing. Data on DNA methylation for tumors and adjacent normal tissue are expected by the end of the study period. CONCLUSION The MEND study will provide a unique, high-quality source of data to evaluate the contribution of metabolic dysregulation such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome to the biology of breast cancer among Nigerian women and foster collaborative studies relevant for women of African descent globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Adewale Adisa
- Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Slawinski CGV, Barriuso J, Guo H, Renehan AG. Obesity and Cancer Treatment Outcomes: Interpreting the Complex Evidence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2020; 32:591-608. [PMID: 32595101 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Revised: 03/17/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
A wealth of epidemiological evidence, combined with plausible biological mechanisms, present a convincing argument for a causal relationship between excess adiposity, commonly approximated as body mass index (BMI, kg/m2), and incident cancer risk. Beyond this relationship, there are a number of challenges posed in the context of interpreting whether being overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2) adversely influences disease progression, cancer mortality and survival. Elevated BMI (≥ 25.0 kg/m2) may influence treatment selection of, for example, the approach to surgery; the choice of chemotherapy dosing; the inclusion of patients into randomised clinical trials. Furthermore, the technical challenges posed by an elevated BMI may adversely affect surgical outcomes, for example, morbidity (increasing the risk of surgical site infections), reduced lymph node harvest (and subsequent risk of under-staging and under-treatment) and increased risk of margin positivity. Suboptimal chemotherapy dosing, associated with capping chemotherapy in obese patients as an attempt to avoid excess toxicity, might be a driver of poor prognostic outcomes. By contrast, the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition may be enhanced in patients who are obese, although in turn, this observation might be due to reverse causality. So, a central research question is whether being overweight or obese adversely affects outcomes either directly through effects of cancer biology or whether adverse outcomes are mediated through indirect pathways. A further dimension to this complex relationship is the obesity paradox, a phenomenon where being overweight or obese is associated with improved survival where the reverse is expected. In this overview, we describe a framework for evaluating methodological problems such as selection bias, confounding and reverse causality, which may contribute to spurious interpretations. Future studies will need to focus on prospective studies with well-considered methodology in order to improve the interpretation of causality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C G V Slawinski
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - J Barriuso
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - H Guo
- Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - A G Renehan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Colorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Cohn BA, Cirillo PM, Terry MB. DDT and Breast Cancer: Prospective Study of Induction Time and Susceptibility Windows. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 111:803-810. [PMID: 30759253 PMCID: PMC6695310 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy198] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2018] [Revised: 09/06/2018] [Accepted: 10/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In a previous Child Health and Development Studies report, p, p'-DDT was associated with a fivefold increased risk of premenopausal (before age 50 years) breast cancer for women first exposed before puberty. Here we extend our observation to breast cancer diagnosed during early postmenopause (ages 50-54 years) to determine whether age at diagnosis modifies the interaction of DDT with age at exposure. METHODS We conducted a second prospective, nested case-control study in the Child Health and Development Studies (153 incident breast cancer cases diagnosed at ages 50-54 years and 432 controls matched to cases on birth year). These were analyzed separately and pooled with our previous study (129 breast cancer cases diagnosed at ages 31-49 years and 129 controls matched on birth year). Blood samples were obtained during pregnancy (median age, 26 years), 1-3 days after delivery from 1959 to 1967 in Oakland, California. Serum was assayed for p, p'-DDT, o, p'-DDT, and p, p'-DDE. Odds ratios (ORs) below are given for doubling of serum p, p'-DDT. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS For early postmenopausal breast cancer, p, p'-DDT was associated with risk for all women (ORDDT 50-54 = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.67). This association was accounted for by women first exposed to DDT after infancy (ORDDT 50-54 for first exposure after infancy = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.96 to 4.10 vs ORDDT 50-54 for first exposure during infancy = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.19; Pinteraction DDT x age at first exposure = .01). In contrast, for premenopausal breast cancer, p, p'-DDT was associated with risk among women first exposed during infancy through puberty, but not after (ORDDT<50 for first exposure during infancy = 3.70, 95% CI = 1.22 to 11.26, Pinteraction DDT x age at first exposure x age at diagnosis = .03). CONCLUSIONS p, p'-DDT was associated with breast cancer through age 54 years. Risk depended on timing of first exposure and diagnosis age, suggesting susceptibility windows and an induction period beginning in early life. DDT appears to be an endocrine disruptor with responsive breast targets from in utero to menopause.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara A Cohn
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors' affiliations
| | - Piera M Cirillo
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors' affiliations
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- See the Notes section for the full list of authors' affiliations
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Role of aldehyde dehydrogenases, alcohol dehydrogenase 1B genotype, alcohol consumption, and their combination in breast cancer in East-Asian women. Sci Rep 2020; 10:6564. [PMID: 32300124 PMCID: PMC7162854 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62361-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2019] [Accepted: 02/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The associations between genetic polymorphisms in ADH1B (rs1229984) and ALDH2 (rs671), alcohol consumption, the effect of a combination of the two polymorphisms, and breast cancer risk were studied in a population of East-Asian women. In this study, 623 breast cancer cases and 1845 controls, aged 40 or above, were included. The association between ALDH2 polymorphism and breast cancer risk was validated in 2143 breast cancer cases and 3977 controls. Alcohol consumption increased the risk of breast cancer regardless of ADH1B and ALDH2 genotypes. The rs671 polymorphism of ALDH2 was independently associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.02–1.58 per increment of A). The ADH1B rs1229984 polymorphism, and combined effects of the rs671 and rs1229984 polymorphisms, did not reveal any significant association with breast cancer. Stratification by menopausal status revealed that rs671 gene polymorphisms were significantly associated with breast cancer only in postmenopausal women (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.03–2.05 per increment of A). This is the first study to demonstrate an independent association between ALDH2 gene variants and breast cancer in Asian women. Further studies are warranted to further elucidate the etiology of breast cancer as it relates to alcohol consumption in Asian women.
Collapse
|
17
|
Wijayabahu AT, Egan KM, Yaghjyan L. Uterine cancer in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 180:1-19. [PMID: 31897901 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05516-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2019] [Accepted: 12/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Epidemiological evidence on the risk factors for uterine/endometrial cancer in breast cancer (BCa) survivors is limited and inconsistent. Therefore, we critically reviewed and summarized available evidence related to the risk factors for uterine/endometrial cancer in BCa survivors. METHODS We conducted a literature search through PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection/Cited Reference Search, as well as through manual searches of the bibliographies of the articles identified in electronic searches. We included in this review studies that were published up to November 30, 2018 that were accessible in full-text format and were published in English. RESULTS Of the 27 eligible studies, 96% had > 700 participants, 74% were prospective cohorts, 70% originated outside of the US, 44% reported as having pre-/postmenopausal women, and 26% reported having racially heterogeneous populations. Risk factors positively associated with uterine/endometrial cancer risk among BCa survivors included age at BCa diagnosis > 50 years, African American race, greater BMI/weight gain, and Tamoxifen treatment. For other lifestyle, reproductive and clinical factors, associations were either not significant (parity) or inconsistent (HRT use, menopausal status, smoking status) or had limited evidence (alcohol intake, family history of cancer, age at first birth, oral contraceptive use, age at menopause, comorbidities). CONCLUSION We identified several methodological concerns and limitations across epidemiological studies on potential risk factors for uterine/endometrial cancer in BCa survivors, including lack of details on uterine/endometrial cancer case ascertainment, varying and imprecise definitions of important covariates, insufficient adjustment for potential confounders, and small numbers of uterine/endometrial cancer cases in the overall as well as stratified analyses. Based on the available evidence, older age and higher body weight measures appear to be a shared risk factor for uterine/endometrial cancer in the general population as well as in BCa survivors. In addition, there is suggestive evidence that African American BCa survivors have a higher risk of uterine/endometrial cancer as compared to their White counterparts. There is also evidence that Tamoxifen contributes to uterine/endometrial cancer in BCa survivors. Given limitations of existing studies, more thorough investigation of these associations is warranted to identify additional preventive strategies needed for BCa survivors to reduce uterine/endometrial cancer risk and improve overall survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akemi T Wijayabahu
- Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Rd, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA
| | - Kathleen M Egan
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
| | - Lusine Yaghjyan
- Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health and Health Professions and College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Rd, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Liaw YY, Loong FS, Tan S, On SY, Khaw E, Chiew Y, Nordin R, Mat TN, Arulanantham S, Gandhi A. A retrospective study on breast cancer presentation, risk factors, and protective factors in patients with a positive family history of breast cancer. Breast J 2019; 26:469-473. [PMID: 31486157 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Women with a positive family history of breast cancer are greatly predisposed to breast cancer development. From January 2007 to December 2016, 1101 patients with a histologically confirmed breast cancer were divided into two groups: patients with and without a positive family history of breast cancer. Variables including age at presentation, ethnicity, tumor size, age at menarche, age at menopause, oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), alcohol intake, smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, parity, and breastfeeding were recorded. One hundred and fifty-nine out of 1101 (14.4%) of the patients had a family history of breast cancer. There was no significant difference in the incidence of breast cancer among Malays, Chinese, and Indians. Both patient groups presented at a mean age of about 60 years (+FH 60; -FH 61.2 P-value = .218). Significantly higher prevalence of history of benign breast disease (11.3%, P .018), nulliparity (13.2%, P .014), tumor size at presentation of more than 5 cm (47.3%, P 0.001), and bilateral site presentation (3.1%, P 0.029) were noted among respondents with a positive family history of breast cancer compared to those with a negative family history of breast cancer. The odds of having a tumor size larger than 5cm at presentation were almost two times higher in patients with a positive family history as compared to those without a family history (adjusted OR = 1.786, 95% CI 1.211-2.484) (P-value .003). Women in Malaysia, despite having a positive family history of breast cancer, still present late at a mean age of 60 with a large tumor size of more than 5 cm, reflecting a lack of awareness. Breastfeeding does not protect women with a family history from developing breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying Yi Liaw
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Foong Shiang Loong
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Suzanne Tan
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Sze Yun On
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Evelyn Khaw
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Yilynn Chiew
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Rusli Nordin
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| | - Tuan Nur Mat
- Head of Department (Surgery), Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA), Johor Bahru, Malaysia
| | - Sarojah Arulanantham
- Head of Department (Surgery), Hospital Sultan Ismail (HSI), Johor Bahru, Malaysia
| | - Anil Gandhi
- Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Niehoff NM, Nichols HB, Zhao S, White AJ, Sandler DP. Adult Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Risk in Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018; 28:51-58. [PMID: 30333218 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2018] [Revised: 09/14/2018] [Accepted: 10/11/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recreational physical activity has been consistently associated with reduced breast cancer risk. Less is known about how family history of breast cancer affects the association and whether it varies by menopausal status. METHODS The Sister Study is a cohort of 50,884 women who had a sister with breast cancer but no prior breast cancer themselves at enrollment. Women reported all recreational sport/exercise activities they participated in over the past 12 months. Hours/week and MET-hours/week of physical activity were considered in association with breast cancer risk. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with Cox regression. Extent of family history, examined as a modifier, was characterized by a Bayesian score incorporating characteristics of the family structure. RESULTS During follow-up (average 8.4 years), 3,023 cases were diagnosed. Higher hours/week (HR≥7vs<1 = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90) and MET-hours/week (HRquartile4vs1 = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85) of physical activity were associated with reduced postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Hours/week and MET-hours/week were associated with suggestively increased premenopausal breast cancer risk (MET-hours/week HRquartile4vs1 = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Associations did not vary with extent of family history. However, the increased risk in premenopausal women may be limited to those with stronger family history. CONCLUSIONS In women with a family history of breast cancer, physical activity was associated with reduced postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, breast cancer risk and was not modified by extent of family history. IMPACT This was the first study to examine the association between physical activity and breast cancer risk in a large population with a family history of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole M Niehoff
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
| | - Hazel B Nichols
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Shanshan Zhao
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
| | - Alexandra J White
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Alagoz O, Ergun MA, Cevik M, Sprague BL, Fryback DG, Gangnon RE, Hampton JM, Stout NK, Trentham-Dietz A. The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:99S-111S. [PMID: 29554470 PMCID: PMC5862066 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17711927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model (UWBCS), also referred to as Model W, is a discrete-event microsimulation model that uses a systems engineering approach to replicate breast cancer epidemiology in the US over time. This population-based model simulates the lifetimes of individual women through 4 main model components: breast cancer natural history, detection, treatment, and mortality. A key feature of the UWBCS is that, in addition to specifying a population distribution in tumor growth rates, the model allows for heterogeneity in tumor behavior, with some tumors having limited malignant potential (i.e., would never become fatal in a woman's lifetime if left untreated) and some tumors being very aggressive based on metastatic spread early in their onset. The model is calibrated to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) breast cancer incidence and mortality data from 1975 to 2010, and cross-validated against data from the Wisconsin cancer reporting system. The UWBCS model generates detailed outputs including underlying disease states and observed clinical outcomes by age and calendar year, as well as costs, resource usage, and quality of life associated with screening and treatment. The UWBCS has been recently updated to account for differences in breast cancer detection, treatment, and survival by molecular subtypes (defined by ER/HER2 status), to reflect the recent advances in screening and treatment, and to consider a range of breast cancer risk factors, including breast density, race, body-mass-index, and the use of postmenopausal hormone therapy. Therefore, the model can evaluate novel screening strategies, such as risk-based screening, and can assess breast cancer outcomes by breast cancer molecular subtype. In this article, we describe the most up-to-date version of the UWBCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| | | | - Brian L Sprague
- Department of Surgery and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
| | - Dennis G Fryback
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| | - Ronald E Gangnon
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| | - John M Hampton
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL, Munoz D, Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Gangnon R, Kurian AW, Weedon-Fekjaer H, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:9S-23S. [PMID: 29554466 PMCID: PMC5862072 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17700624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since their inception in 2000, the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) breast cancer models have collaborated to use a nationally representative core of common input parameters to represent key components of breast cancer control in each model. Employment of common inputs permits greater ability to compare model output than when each model begins with different input parameters. The use of common inputs also enhances inferences about the results, and provides a range of reasonable results based on variations in model structure, assumptions, and methods of use of the input values. The common input data are updated for each analysis to ensure that they reflect the most current practice and knowledge about breast cancer. The common core of parameters includes population rates of births and deaths; age- and cohort-specific temporal rates of breast cancer incidence in the absence of screening and treatment; effects of risk factors on incidence trends; dissemination of plain film and digital mammography; screening test performance characteristics; stage or size distribution of screen-, interval-, and clinically- detected tumors by age; the joint distribution of ER/HER2 by age and stage; survival in the absence of screening and treatment by stage and molecular subtype; age-, stage-, and molecular subtype-specific therapy; dissemination and effectiveness of therapies over time; and competing non-breast cancer mortality. METHOD AND RESULTS In this paper, we summarize the methods and results for the common input values presently used in the CISNET breast cancer models, note assumptions made because of unobservable phenomena and/or unavailable data, and highlight plans for the development of future parameters. CONCLUSION These data are intended to enhance the transparency of the breast CISNET models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Aimee M Near
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Diana L Miglioretti
- Department of Public Health Sciences, UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA and Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA and Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Diego Munoz
- Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Brian L Sprague
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Ronald Gangnon
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Departments of Medicine and Health Research & Policy, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Harald Weedon-Fekjaer
- Oslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology [OCBE], Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Kathleen A Cronin
- Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lin Y, Guo W, Li N, Fu F, Lin S, Wang C. Polymorphisms of long non-coding RNA HOTAIR with breast cancer susceptibility and clinical outcomes for a southeast Chinese Han population. Oncotarget 2017; 9:3677-3689. [PMID: 29423075 PMCID: PMC5790492 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2017] [Accepted: 11/17/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Hox transcript antisense intergenic RNA (HOTAIR) is a well-known long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) which participates in tumorigenesis and progress of multiple cancers. However, the associations among polymorphisms on HOTAIR, breast cancer (BC) susceptibility and clinical outcomes have remained obscure. In this case-control study, we assessed the interaction between three lncRNA HOTAIR single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs1899663, rs4759314 and rs7958904) on the risk and clinical outcome of breast cancer in a Chinese Han population. In total, 969 breast cancer cases and 970 healthy controls were enrolled in this study. Associations among genotypes, BC risk and survival were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method. We found that the T allele of rs1899663 and C allele of rs7958904 both achieved significant differences between cases and controls in the single locus analyses (P = 0.017 and 0.010, respectively). Multivariate analyses also revealed the rs1899663 TT genotype and rs7958904 CC genotype were both at higher risk of breast cancer compared with the GG homozygotes (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.20–3.60 and OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.01–2.08, respectively). In survival analysis, we observed that the T allele of rs1899663 presented significant differences for both DFS (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.12–2.40) and OS (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.29–3.42) in younger subjects (age ≤ 40). Our findings may provide new insights into the associations among the genetic susceptibility, the fine classifications and the prognosis of breast cancer. Further studies with larger sample size and functional research should also be conducted to validate our findings and better elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuxiang Lin
- Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350001, China
| | - Wenhui Guo
- Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350001, China
| | - Neng Li
- Department of Pathogeny Microbilogy, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350108, China.,Key Laboratory of Tumor Microbiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350108, China
| | - Fangmeng Fu
- Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350001, China
| | - Songping Lin
- Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350001, China
| | - Chuan Wang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350001, China
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Playdon MC, Coburn SB, Moore SC, Brinton LA, Wentzensen N, Anderson G, Wallace R, Falk RT, Pfeiffer R, Xu X, Trabert B. Alcohol and oestrogen metabolites in postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Br J Cancer 2017; 118:448-457. [PMID: 29235567 PMCID: PMC5808032 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.419] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2017] [Revised: 10/25/2017] [Accepted: 10/26/2017] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of several cancers. Potential mechanisms include altered oestrogen metabolism. Parent oestrogens metabolise into alternate pathways of oestrogen metabolites that may have variable effects on cancer pathogenesis. We examined associations of alcohol consumption with circulating oestrogen/oestrogen metabolites in postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)-Observational Study (OS). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of prediagnosis ovarian/endometrial cancer case-control data within WHI-OS (N=1864). Alcohol consumption was measured by validated food frequency questionnaire. Fasting serum parent oestrogens/oestrogen metabolites were assayed using liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometry. Geometric mean analyte concentrations (GM, pmol l−1) were calculated by alcohol category using inverse-probability weighted linear regression, adjusting for venepuncture age/year, race, smoking, body mass index, years since menopause, oral contraceptive duration, caffeine intake, and physical activity. Results: There was evidence for a positive association between alcohol consumption and oestrone, oestradiol and 2-hydroxylation oestrogen metabolite concentrations among menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) users. We observed an association between liquor consumption and parent oestrogens among non-MHT users, who consumed larger doses of liquor than MHT users. Conclusions: Among postmenopausal women, the association between alcohol intake and parent oestrogen, but not oestrogen metabolite concentrations, may be influenced by MHT and type of alcohol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary C Playdon
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Sally B Coburn
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Steven C Moore
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Louise A Brinton
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Nicolas Wentzensen
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Garnet Anderson
- Public Health Sciences Division, University of Washington, 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M3-C102, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
| | - Robert Wallace
- College of Public Health, The University of Iowa, 145 N. Riverside drive, 100 CPHB, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
| | - Roni T Falk
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Ruth Pfeiffer
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| | - Xia Xu
- Hormone Analysis Unit, Protein Characterization Laboratory, Cancer Research Technology Program, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., P.O. Box B, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA
| | - Britton Trabert
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6909 Medical Centre Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
McClain KM, McCullough LE, Bradshaw PT, Shantakumar S, Terry MB, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Age-Specific Indicators of a Healthy Lifestyle and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2017; 26:1176-1184. [PMID: 28384095 PMCID: PMC5695743 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Modifiable lifestyle factors have been consistently associated with breast cancer, and risk may vary by menopausal status. However, whether these associations vary according to age among postmenopausal women remains unresolved. METHODS Using postmenopausal women from a population-based case-control study (990 cases and 1006 frequency-matched controls), we conducted multivariable-adjusted unconditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for lifestyle factors (lifetime alcohol intake, body mass index [BMI] in the year before diagnosis, lifetime recreational physical activity [RPA], and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use) in association with breast cancer stratified by age (<65 vs. 65+). We examined estrogen-related subgroups by (1) further stratifying by hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use and (2) restricting cases to estrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)+ cancers. RESULTS Postmenopausal breast cancer incidence in women 65 years and older was positively associated with alcohol intake (OR = 1.79 for 15-30 g/day vs. nondrinkers, 95% CI: 1.03-3.12) and BMI (OR = 1.83 for BMI ≥30 vs. <25, 95% CI: 1.29-2.60), and inversely with RPA (OR = 0.69 for fourth quartile vs. inactive, 95% CI: 0.47-1.03). For postmenopausal women younger than 65, ORs were closer to the null. Tests for heterogeneity by age were significant at the p < 0.10 level for BMI and RPA, but not alcohol. Among older women, associations were stronger among never users of HRT and for those with ER+/PR+ cancers. The inverse associations with aspirin use did not differ by age. CONCLUSIONS Interventions targeting modifiable lifestyle factors may reduce the burden of postmenopausal breast cancer among older women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathleen M. McClain
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | | | - Patrick T. Bradshaw
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California
| | | | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Alfred I. Neugut
- Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, New York
- Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Marilie D. Gammon
- Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Giudici F, Scaggiante B, Scomersi S, Bortul M, Tonutti M, Zanconati F. Breastfeeding: a reproductive factor able to reduce the risk of luminal B breast cancer in premenopausal White women. Eur J Cancer Prev 2017; 26:217-224. [PMID: 26849393 DOI: 10.1097/cej.0000000000000220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
In the medical literature, the role of breastfeeding and reproductive factors in the risk of breast carcinoma is still an open debate in premenopausal women. We highlight the role of breastfeeding and reproductive factors in luminal A and luminal B, the most frequent breast cancers. This case-control study analyzes a White premenopausal population of 286 breast cancer patients, divided into molecular subtypes, and 578 controls matched by age. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships of breastfeeding and other reproductive factors (age at menarche, parity, age at first pregnancy, number of children) with the risk of breast cancers. Among the variables examined, reproductive factors did not alter the risk of cancer, whereas breastfeeding up to 12 months was a significant protective factor against luminal B breast cancer (multivariate odds ratio: 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.59, P=0.002). In contrast, luminal A cases did not significantly correlate with breastfeeding or other reproductive factors. Breastfeeding up to 12 months is strongly protective against the more aggressive luminal B, but not against the less aggressive luminal A breast cancer in premenopausal White women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabiola Giudici
- Departments of aMedical, Surgical and Health Sciences bLife Sciences, University of Trieste cAcademic Hospital, Ospedali Riuniti, Trieste, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Demchig D, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan PC. Breast cancer in Mongolia: an increasingly important health policy issue. BREAST CANCER-TARGETS AND THERAPY 2017; 9:29-38. [PMID: 28176935 PMCID: PMC5268367 DOI: 10.2147/bctt.s125584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death for women in both developed and developing countries. The incidence and mortality of breast cancer in Mongolia, while low compared with other counties, has been increasing on an annual basis. In addition, in Mongolia, approximately 90% of the patients are diagnosed at a late stage, resulting in high mortality, with the majority of individuals diagnosed with breast cancer dying within 5 years of diagnosis. Breast cancer screening plays an important role in reducing mortality in Western countries and has been adopted by a number of Asian countries; however, no such approach exists in Mongolia. In a country of limited resources, implementation of expensive health strategies such as screening requires effective allocations of resources and the identification of the most effective imaging methods. This requirement relies on recent accurate data; however, at this time, there is a paucity of information around breast cancer in Mongolia. Until data around features of the disease are available, effective strategies to diagnose breast cancer that recognize the economic climate in Mongolia cannot be implemented and the impact of breast cancer is likely to increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Delgermaa Demchig
- Medical Image Optimization and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Claudia Mello-Thoms
- Medical Image Optimization and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Patrick C Brennan
- Medical Image Optimization and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Shi M, O'Brien KM, Sandler DP, Taylor JA, Zaykin DV, Weinberg CR. Previous GWAS hits in relation to young-onset breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 161:333-344. [PMID: 27848153 PMCID: PMC5226879 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-4053-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2016] [Accepted: 11/09/2016] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified dozens of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer. Few studies focused on young-onset breast cancer, which exhibits etiologic and tumor-type differences from older-onset disease. Possible confounding by prenatal effects of the maternal genome has also not been considered. METHODS Using a family-based design for breast cancer before age 50, we assessed the relationship between breast cancer and 77 GWAS-identified breast cancer risk SNPs. We estimated relative risks (RR) for inherited and maternally mediated genetic effects. We also used published RR estimates to calculate genetic risk scores and model joint effects. RESULTS Seventeen of the candidate SNPs were nominally associated with young-onset breast cancer in our 1296 non-Hispanic white affected families (uncorrected p value <0.05). Top-ranked SNPs included rs3803662-A (TOX3, RR = 1.39; p = 7.0 × 10-6), rs12662670-G (ESR1, RR = 1.56; p = 5.7 × 10-4), rs2981579-A (FGFR2, RR = 1.24; p = 0.002), and rs999737-G (RAD51B, RR = 1.37; p = 0.003). No maternally mediated effects were found. A risk score based on all 77 SNPs indicated that their overall relationship to young-onset breast cancer risk was more than additive (additive-fit p = 2.2 × 10-7) and consistent with a multiplicative joint effect (multiplicative-fit p = 0.27). With the multiplicative formulation, the case sister's genetic risk score exceeded that of her unaffected sister in 59% of families. CONCLUSIONS The results of this family-based study indicate that no effects of previously identified risk SNPs were explained by prenatal effects of maternal variants. Many of the known breast cancer risk variants were associated with young-onset breast cancer, with evidence that TOX3, ESR1, FGFR2, and RAD51B are important for young-onset disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Shi
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Katie M O'Brien
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Fr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Jack A Taylor
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Fr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Dmitri V Zaykin
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA
| | - Clarice R Weinberg
- Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CB, Ergun MA, van den Broek JJ, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, van Ravesteyn NT, Near AM, Gangnon RE, Hampton JM, Chandler Y, de Koning HJ, Mandelblatt JS, Tosteson ANA. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165:700-712. [PMID: 27548583 PMCID: PMC5125086 DOI: 10.7326/m16-0476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Biennial screening is generally recommended for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, but tailored screening may provide greater benefits. OBJECTIVE To estimate outcomes for various screening intervals after age 50 years based on breast density and risk for breast cancer. DESIGN Collaborative simulation modeling using national incidence, breast density, and screening performance data. SETTING United States. PATIENTS Women aged 50 years or older with various combinations of breast density and relative risk (RR) of 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, or 4.0. INTERVENTION Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no screening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years). MEASUREMENTS Lifetime breast cancer deaths, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-positive results to breast cancer deaths averted. RESULTS Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR. False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with increasing risk. Among women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular density and an RR of 1.0 or 1.3, breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted). Breast cancer deaths averted increased with annual versus biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years at all levels of breast density and an RR of 4.0, and those aged 65 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and an RR of 4.0. However, harms were almost 2-fold higher. Triennial screening for the average-risk subgroup and annual screening for the highest-risk subgroup cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained. LIMITATION Models did not consider women younger than 50 years, those with an RR less than 1, or other imaging methods. CONCLUSION Average-risk women with low breast density undergoing triennial screening and higher-risk women with high breast density receiving annual screening will maintain a similar or better balance of benefits and harms than average-risk women receiving biennial screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Trentham-Dietz
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Natasha K Stout
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Diana L Miglioretti
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Jeroen J van den Broek
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Brian L Sprague
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Aimee M Near
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Ronald E Gangnon
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - John M Hampton
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Young Chandler
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Harry J de Koning
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Anna N A Tosteson
- From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC; and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Expression of MMP and TIMP mRNA in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes of Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Int J Biol Markers 2016; 31:e309-16. [DOI: 10.5301/jbm.5000203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/08/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Purpose An imbalance between matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of MMPs (TIMPs) appears critical for tumor progression and metastasis. This study aimed to determine whether gene expression of MMP1, MMP2, MMP9, TIMP1 and TIMP3 and the MMP/TIMP expression ratio in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs) and the MMP1 and TIMP1 contents or MMP1/TIMP1 ratio in plasma were associated with clinicopathological characteristics in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Materials and methods Blood samples were collected from women newly diagnosed with IDC who had not received prior treatment (n = 102). Gene expression in PBLs was analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Concentrations of MMP1 and TIMP1 in plasma were measured using ELISA. Results In univariate analysis the expression levels of MMP2 and TIMP1 mRNA were significantly higher in premenopausal compared to postmenopausal patients (p<0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively). MMP2 mRNA expression negatively correlated with age (p<0.001, r = -0.43). We found that the MMP2/TIMP3 expression ratio was significantly higher in women after menopause (p = 0.007). The MMP2/TIMP1 expression ratio was higher in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive patients (p = 0.022). Low-grade tumors had significantly lower MMP1/TIMP1 and MMP2/TIMP1 expression ratios (p = 0.047 and p = 0.048, respectively). TIMP1 plasma concentration was significantly higher in small tumors compared with T2-T3 tumors (p = 0.013). Conclusions These findings reveal an important association between tumor characteristics and expression ratios of MMP1/TIMP1 and MMP2/TIMP1 in PBLs and TIMP1 concentration in plasma. Menopausal status may influence the mRNA expression levels of MMP2 and TIMP1 as well as the MMP2/TIMP3 expression ratio in IDC of the breast.
Collapse
|
30
|
Sung H, Rosenberg PS, Chen WQ, Hartman M, Lim WY, Chia KS, Wai-Kong Mang O, Tse L, Anderson WF, Yang XR. The impact of breast cancer-specific birth cohort effects among younger and older Chinese populations. Int J Cancer 2016; 139:527-34. [PMID: 26992019 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2015] [Accepted: 03/10/2016] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Historically low breast cancer incidence rates among Asian women have risen worldwide; purportedly due to the adoption of a "Western" life style among younger generations (i.e., the more recent birth cohorts). However, no study has simultaneously compared birth cohort effects between both younger and older women in different Asian and Western populations. Using cancer registry data from rural and urban China, Singapore and the United States (1990-2008), we estimated age-standardized incidence rates (ASR), annual percentage change (EAPC) in the ASR, net drifts, birth cohort specific incidence rates and cohort rate ratios (CRR). Younger (30-49 years, 1943-1977 birth cohorts) and older women (50-79 years; 1913-1957 birth cohorts) were assessed separately. CRRs among Chinese populations were estimated using birth cohort specific rates with US non-Hispanic white women (NHW) serving as the reference population with an assigned CRR of 1.0. We observed higher EAPCs and net drifts among those Chinese populations with lower ASRs. Similarly, we observed the most rapidly increasing cohort-specific incidence rates among those Chinese populations with the lowest baseline CRRs. Both trends were more significant among older than younger women. Average CRRs were 0.06-0.44 among older and 0.18-0.81 among younger women. Rapidly rising cohort specific rates have narrowed the historic disparity between Chinese and US NHW breast cancer populations particularly in regions with the lowest baseline rates and among older women. Future analytic studies are needed to investigate risk factors accounting for the rapid increase of breast cancer among older and younger women separately in Asian populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyuna Sung
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Philip S Rosenberg
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Wan-Qing Chen
- National Office for Cancer Prevention and Control and National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center, Beijing, China
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.,Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.,Department of Surgery, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wei-Yen Lim
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kee Seng Chia
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Lapah Tse
- Division of Occupational and Environmental Health, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - William F Anderson
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Xiaohong R Yang
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, Trentham-Dietz A, Munoz D, Lee SJ, Berry DA, van Ravesteyn NT, Alagoz O, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Near AM, Hoeffken A, Chang Y, Heijnsdijk EA, Chisholm G, Huang X, Huang H, Ergun MA, Gangnon R, Sprague BL, Plevritis S, Feuer E, de Koning HJ, Cronin KA. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164:215-25. [PMID: 26756606 PMCID: PMC5079106 DOI: 10.7326/m15-1536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 191] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. DESIGN Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. SETTING United States. PATIENTS Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. INTERVENTION Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. RESULTS Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. CONCLUSION Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institutes of Health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Natasha K. Stout
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Clyde B. Schechter
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Jeroen J. van den Broek
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Diana L. Miglioretti
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Martin Krapcho
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Diego Munoz
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Sandra J. Lee
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Donald A. Berry
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Anna N.A. Tosteson
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Aimee M. Near
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Amanda Hoeffken
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Yaojen Chang
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Eveline A. Heijnsdijk
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Gary Chisholm
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Xuelin Huang
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Hui Huang
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Ronald Gangnon
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Brian L. Sprague
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Sylvia Plevritis
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Eric Feuer
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Harry J. de Koning
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Kathleen A. Cronin
- From Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Stanford University, Stanford, and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; Information Management Services, Calverton, and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; and College of Medicine, and University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Kim S, Shore DL, Wilson LE, Sanniez EI, Kim JH, Taylor JA, Sandler DP. Lifetime use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and breast cancer risk: results from a prospective study of women with a sister with breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2015; 15:960. [PMID: 26673874 PMCID: PMC4682256 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1979-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2015] [Accepted: 12/07/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to inhibit several pathways in experimental models of breast carcinogenesis, but epidemiological evidence remains insufficient to support their use for breast cancer prevention. We examined the association between use of NSAIDs and breast cancer risk in a prospective cohort. Methods The Sister Study is a prospective cohort study of women who had a sister(s) with breast cancer. As of December 2013, 2118 incident breast cancers were ascertained from 50,884 women enrolled between 2003 and 2009. Lifetime history of NSAID use was estimated from self-reported data in pill-years, with 1 pill per week for a year equivalent to 1 pill-year. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast cancer in relation to pill-years of use for different NSAIDs, with adjustment for potential confounders. Results In the full cohort, although there was some evidence that use of non-aspirin, non-COXib NSAIDs was associated with lower breast cancer risk, there was little evidence of overall association for most categories of NSAID use. Among postmenopausal women NSAID use was not associated with reduced risk of breast cancer. However, among premenopausal women there was significantly reduced risk for any NSAID (HR4vs1 = 0.66, 95 % CI: 0.50–0.87) and specifically for aspirin (HR4vs1 = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.33–0.98), with small, but non-significant reductions in risk for other drug classes. Conclusion Women with a sister with breast cancer are themselves at increased risk and might benefit the most from chemoprevention. Although there was little evidence of protective effect from NSAIDs in the overall cohort of women or among the subset who are postmenopausal, there is intriguing evidence that NSAID use, particularly aspirin, may reduce risk among premenopausal women. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1979-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sangmi Kim
- Medical College of Georgia, Department of Medicine-Section of Hematology/Oncology, Augusta University GRU Cancer Center, 1410 Laney Walker Blvd., Augusta, GA, 30912, USA.
| | | | - Lauren E Wilson
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27599, USA.
| | | | - Jae H Kim
- Medical College of Georgia, Department of Medicine-Section of Hematology/Oncology, Augusta University GRU Cancer Center, 1410 Laney Walker Blvd., Augusta, GA, 30912, USA.
| | - Jack A Taylor
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27599, USA.
| | - Dale P Sandler
- Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27599, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Kratzke C, Amatya A, Vilchis H. Breast cancer prevention knowledge, beliefs, and information sources between non-Hispanic and Hispanic college women for risk reduction focus. J Community Health 2015; 40:124-30. [PMID: 24989348 DOI: 10.1007/s10900-014-9908-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Although growing research focuses on breast cancer screenings, little is known about breast cancer prevention with risk reduction awareness for ethnic differences among college-age women. This study examined breast cancer prevention knowledge, beliefs, and information sources between non-Hispanic and Hispanic college women. Using a cross-sectional study, women at a university in the Southwest completed a 51-item survey about breast cancer risk factors, beliefs, and media and interpersonal information sources. The study was guided by McGuire's Input Output Persuasion Model. Of the 546 participants, non-Hispanic college women (n = 277) and Hispanic college women (n = 269) reported similar basic knowledge levels of modifiable breast cancer risk factors for alcohol consumption (52 %), obesity (72 %), childbearing after age 35 (63 %), and menopausal hormone therapy (68 %) using bivariate analyses. Most common information sources were Internet (75 %), magazines (69 %), provider (76 %) and friends (61 %). Least common sources were radio (44 %), newspapers (34 %), and mothers (36 %). Non-Hispanic college women with breast cancer family history were more likely to receive information from providers, friends, and mothers. Hispanic college women with a breast cancer family history were more likely to receive information from their mothers. Breast cancer prevention education for college women is needed to include risk reduction for modifiable health behavior changes as a new focus. Health professionals may target college women with more information sources including the Internet or apps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Kratzke
- Department of Public Health Sciences, MSC 3HLS, College of Health and Social Services, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA,
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Dartois L, Gauthier É, Heitzmann J, Baglietto L, Michiels S, Mesrine S, Boutron-Ruault MC, Delaloge S, Ragusa S, Clavel-Chapelon F, Fagherazzi G. A comparison between different prediction models for invasive breast cancer occurrence in the French E3N cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 150:415-26. [PMID: 25744293 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3321-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2014] [Accepted: 02/23/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer remains a global health concern with a lack of high discriminating prediction models. The k-nearest-neighbor algorithm (kNN) estimates individual risks using an intuitive tool. This study compares the performances of this approach with the Cox and the Gail models for the 5-year breast cancer risk prediction. The study included 64,995 women from the French E3N prospective cohort. The sample was divided into a learning (N = 51,821) series to learn the models using fivefold cross-validation and a validation (N = 13,174) series to evaluate them. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the expected over observed number of cases (E/O) ratio were estimated. In the two series, 393 and 78 premenopausal and 537 and 98 postmenopausal breast cancers were diagnosed. The discrimination values of the best combinations of predictors obtained from cross-validation ranged from 0.59 to 0.60. In the validation series, the AUC values in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were 0.583 [0.520; 0.646] and 0.621 [0.563; 0.679] using the kNN and 0.565 [0.500; 0.631] and 0.617 [0.561; 0.673] using the Cox model. The E/O ratios were 1.26 and 1.28 in premenopausal women and 1.44 and 1.40 in postmenopausal women. The applied Gail model provided AUC values of 0.614 [0.554; 0.675] and 0.549 [0.495; 0.604] and E/O ratios of 0.78 and 1.12. This study shows that the prediction performances differed according to menopausal status when using parametric statistical tools. The k-nearest-neighbor approach performed well, and discrimination was improved in postmenopausal women compared with the Gail model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laureen Dartois
- Inserm (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale), Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), U1018, Team 9, 114 rue Édouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Ayvaci MUS, Alagoz O, Chhatwal J, Munoz del Rio A, Sickles EA, Nassif H, Kerlikowske K, Burnside ES. Predicting invasive breast cancer versus DCIS in different age groups. BMC Cancer 2014; 14:584. [PMID: 25112586 PMCID: PMC4138370 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2013] [Accepted: 08/06/2014] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Increasing focus on potentially unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of certain breast cancers prompted our investigation of whether clinical and mammographic features predictive of invasive breast cancer versus ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) differ by age. Methods We analyzed 1,475 malignant breast biopsies, 1,063 invasive and 412 DCIS, from 35,871 prospectively collected consecutive diagnostic mammograms interpreted at University of California, San Francisco between 1/6/1997 and 6/29/2007. We constructed three logistic regression models to predict the probability of invasive cancer versus DCIS for the following groups: women ≥ 65 (older group), women 50–64 (middle age group), and women < 50 (younger group). We identified significant predictors and measured the performance in all models using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results The models for older and the middle age groups performed significantly better than the model for younger group (AUC = 0.848 vs, 0.778; p = 0.049 and AUC = 0.851 vs, 0.778; p = 0.022, respectively). Palpability and principal mammographic finding were significant predictors in distinguishing invasive from DCIS in all age groups. Family history of breast cancer, mass shape and mass margins were significant positive predictors of invasive cancer in the older group whereas calcification distribution was a negative predictor of invasive cancer (i.e. predicted DCIS). In the middle age group—mass margins, and in the younger group—mass size were positive predictors of invasive cancer. Conclusions Clinical and mammographic finding features predict invasive breast cancer versus DCIS better in older women than younger women. Specific predictive variables differ based on age. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-584) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Elizabeth S Burnside
- Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
| |
Collapse
|