Hormonal exposures and breast cancer in a sample of women with systemic lupus erythematosus

U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1-103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

Trans-ethnic Mendelian randomization study of systemic lupus erythematosus and common female hormone-dependent malignancies

BACKGROUND

Observational research has reported that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is related to common female hormone-dependent cancers, but the underlying causal effect remains undefined. This study aimed to explore the causal association of these conditions by Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.

METHODS

We selected instrumental variables for SLE from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) conducted in European and East Asian populations. The genetic variants for female malignant neoplasms were obtained from corresponding ancestry GWASs. We utilized inverse variance weighted (IVW) as the primary analysis, followed by sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, we conducted multivariable MR (MVMR) to estimate direct effects by adjusting for the body mass index and estradiol. Finally, we implemented reverse direction MR analysis and gave a negative example to test the reliability of MR results.

RESULTS

We found SLE was significantly negatively associated with overall endometrial cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.961, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.935-0.987, P  = 3.57E-03) and moderately inversely related to endometrioid endometrial cancer (ENEC) (OR = 0.965, 95% CI = 0.936-0.995, P  = 0.024) risk in the European population by IVW. We replicated these results using other MR models and detected a direct effect by MVMR (overall endometrial cancer, OR = 0.962, 95% CI = 0.941-0.983, P  = 5.11E-04; ENEC, OR = 0.964, 95% CI = 0.940-0.989, P  = 0.005). Moreover, we revealed that SLE was correlated with decreased breast cancer risk (OR = 0.951, 95% CI = 0.918-0.986, P  = 0.006) in the East Asian population by IVW, and the effect was still significant in MVMR (OR = 0.934, 95% CI = 0.859-0.976, P  = 0.002). The statistical powers of positive MR results were all >0.9.

CONCLUSION

This finding suggests a possible causal effect of SLE on the risk of overall endometrial cancer and breast cancer in European and East Asian populations, respectively, by MR analysis, which compensates for inherent limitations of observational research.

Sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) affects women more frequently than men, similar to the female predilection for other autoimmune diseases. Moreover, male patients with SLE exhibit different clinical features than female patients. Sex-associated differences in SLE required special considerations for disease management such as during pregnancy or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Sex hormones, namely, estrogen and testosterone, are known to affect immune responses and autoimmunity. While estrogen and progesterone promote type I immune response, and testosterone enhances T-helper 1 response. Sex hormones also influence Toll-like receptor pathways, and estrogen receptor signaling is involved in the activation and tolerance of immune cells. Further, the clinical features of SLE vary according to hormonal changes in female patients. Alterations in sex hormones during pregnancy can alter the disease activity of SLE, which is associated with pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, HRT may change SLE status. Sex hormones affect the pathogenesis, clinical features, and management of SLE; thus, understanding the occurrence and exacerbation of disease caused by sex hormones is necessary to improve its management.

Risk of malignancy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malignancy is a potential comorbidity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, risk by malignancy type remains to be fully elucidated. We evaluated the risk of malignancy type in SLE patients in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018 to identify observational studies that evaluated malignancy risk in adult SLE patients compared with the general population. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² test.

FINDINGS

Forty-one studies reporting on 40 malignancies (one overall, 39 site-specific) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RR for all malignancies from 3694 events across 80 833 patients was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.00-1.38). The risk of 24 site-specific malignancies (62%) was increased in SLE patients. For malignancies with ≥6 studies, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma risk was increased >3-fold; myeloma and liver >2-fold; cervical, lung, bladder, and thyroid ≥1.5-fold; stomach and brain >1.3-fold. The risk of four malignancies (breast, uterine, melanoma, prostate) was decreased, whereas risk of 11 other malignancies did not differ between SLE patients and the general population. Heterogeneity ranged between 0% and 96%, and 63% were non-significant.

INTERPRETATION

The risk of overall and some site-specific malignancies is increased in SLE compared with the general population. However, the risk for some site-specific malignancies is decreased or did not differ. Further examination of risk profiles and SLE patient phenotypes may support guidelines aimed at reducing malignancy risk.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number: CRD42018110433.

Validation of breast cancer risk assessment tools on a French-Canadian population-based cohort

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the accuracy of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), International Breast Cancer Intervention Study risk evaluation tool (IBIS), Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) and combined scores (BCRAT+PRS and IBIS +PRS) to predict the occurrence of invasive breast cancers at 5 years in a French-Canadian population.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

We used the population-based cohort CARTaGENE, composed of 43 037 Quebec residents aged between 40 and 69 years and broadly representative of the population recorded on the Quebec administrative health insurance registries.

PARTICIPANTS

10 200 women recruited in 2009-2010 were included for validating BCRAT and IBIS and 4555 with genetic information for validating the PRS and combined scores.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We computed the absolute risks of breast cancer at 5 years using BCRAT, IBIS, four published PRS and combined models. We reported the overall calibration performance, goodness-of-fit test and discriminatory accuracy.

RESULTS

131 (1.28%) women developed a breast cancer at 5 years for validating BCRAT and IBIS and 58 (1.27%) for validating PRS and combined scores. Median follow-up was 5 years. BCRAT and IBIS had an overall expected-to-observed ratio of 1.01 (0.85-1.19) and 1.02 (0.86-1.21) but with significant differences when partitioning by risk groups (p<0.05). IBIS' c-index was significantly higher than BCRAT (63.42 (59.35-67.49) vs 58.63 (54.05-63.21), p=0.013). PRS scores had a global calibration around 0.82, with a CI including one, and non-significant goodness-of-fit tests. PRS' c-indexes were non-significantly higher than BCRAT and IBIS, the highest being 64.43 (58.23-70.63). Combined models did not improve the results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this French-Canadian population-based cohort, BCRAT and IBIS have good mean calibration that could be improved for risk subgroups, and modest discriminatory accuracy. Despite this modest discriminatory power, these tools can be of interest for primary care physicians for delivering a personalised message to their high-risk patients, regarding screening and lifestyle counselling.

Assessment of the risk of developing breast cancer using the Gail model in Asian females: A systematic review

Introduction

Currently, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), also known as the Gail model (GM) has been widely recognized and adapted for to study disparity in racial and ethnic groups in America including Asian and Pacific Islander American females. However, its applicability outside America remains uncertain due to diversity in epidemiology and risk factors of breast cancer in populations especially in Asian females. We sought to evaluate the performance of the GM to predict breast cancer risk in Asian countries.

Material and methods

This study identified articles published from 2010 by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and gray literature. The initial search terms were breast cancer, mammary, carcinoma, tumor, neoplasm, risk assessment tool, BCRAT, breast cancer prediction, Gail model, Asia, and Asian.

Results

The search yielded 20 articles, with 7 articles addressing the AUC and/or the expected (E) to observed (O) ratio of predicted breast cancer risk, representing the accuracy of the GM in the Asian population. One publication reported the sensitivity and specificity but no AUC. None of the studies were accepted as the standard for reporting prognostic models. Several studies reported good prognostic testing and likely developed a new model modifying the items in the instrument.

Conclusion

The results are not strong enough to develop breast cancer risk in the setting of Asian countries. Involving the breast cancer risk of the Asian population in developing a prognostic model with good statistical understanding is particularly important and can reduce flawed or biased models. Identifying the best methods to achieve well-suited prognostic models in the Asian population should be a priority.

Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The Gail model has been widely used and validated with conflicting results. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of different versions of the Gail model by means of systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Three systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled expected-to-observed (E/O) ratio and pooled area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were evaluated by bivariate mixed-effects model. TSA was also conducted to determine whether the evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

RESULTS

Gail model 1 accurately predicted breast cancer risk in American women (pooled E/O = 1.03; 95% CI 0.76-1.40). The pooled E/O ratios of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 in American, European and Asian women were 0.98 (95% CI 0.91-1.06), 1.07 (95% CI 0.66-1.74) and 2.29 (95% CI 1.95-2.68), respectively. Additionally, Asian-American Gail model 2 overestimated the risk for Asian women about two times (pooled E/O = 1.82; 95% CI 1.31-2.51). TSA showed that evidence in Asian women was sufficient; nonetheless, the results in American and European women need further verification. The pooled AUCs for Gail model 1 in American and European women and Asian females were 0.55 (95% CI 0.53-0.56) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.88), respectively, and the pooled AUCs of Caucasian-American Gail model 2 for American, Asian and European females were 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.63), 0.55 (95% CI 0.52-0.58) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.55-0.62), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of Gail model 1 were 0.63 (95% CI 0.27-0.89), 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) and 17.38 (95% CI 2.66-113.70), respectively, and the corresponding indexes of Gail model 2 were 0.35 (95% CI 0.17-0.59), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) and 3.38 (95% CI 1.40-8.17), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gail model was more accurate in predicting the incidence of breast cancer in American and European females, while far less useful for individual-level risk prediction. Moreover, the Gail model may overestimate the risk in Asian women and the results were further validated by TSA, which is an addition to the three previous systematic review and meta-analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016047215 .

No association between the risk of breast cancer and systemic lupus erythematosus: evidence from a meta-analysis

Several studies have estimated breast cancer risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relative to the general population. However, the results have been inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain a more comprehensive conclusion. A systematic literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted to identify eligible studies using multiple search strategies. Based on the degree of heterogeneity, a random-effect model was chosen to calculate the pooled standardized incidence rate (SIR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), to estimate the strength of association between SLE and breast cancer incidence risk. A total of 18 eligible studies including 110,720 patients with SLE were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed no significant association between SLE and breast cancer incidence (SIRs = 1.012 (95% CI, 0.797-1.284)). Subgroup analysis by study type, ethnicity, follow-up years, sample size, and SLE diagnostic criteria also showed no altered risk for breast cancer incidence (the summary risk estimate of each subgroup ranged from 0.82 to 1.40 with no statistical significance). This meta-analysis suggests no direct association between SLE and risk of breast cancer incidence.

Risk factors of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The etiology of breast cancer might be explained by 2 mechanisms, namely, differentiation and proliferation of breast epithelial cells mediated by hormonal factors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to update effects of risk factors for both mechanisms. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to January 2011. Studies that assessed association between oral contraceptives (OC), hormonal replacement therapy (HRT), diabetes mellitus (DM), or breastfeeding and breast cancer were eligible. Relative risks with their confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. A random-effects method was applied for pooling the effect size. The pooled odds ratios of OC, HRT, and DM were 1.10 (95% CI = 1.03-1.18), 1.23 (95% CI = 1.21-1.25), and 1.14 (95% CI = 1.09-1.19), respectively, whereas the pooled odds ratio of ever-breastfeeding was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.58-0.89). Our study suggests that OC, HRT, and DM might increase risks, whereas breastfeeding might lower risks of breast cancer.

Malignancies in systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototypical systemic autoimmune disease, characterized by a wide array of symptoms and organ involvements, leading to varying disease courses and outcome, and ranging from mild to severe types. In patients with SLE, the incidence and risk of malignancy development is increased, and mostly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), cervical cancer, as well as bronchial carcinomas occur. Besides others, the common genetic predisposition, chronic antigen stimulus, disproportional immune responses, as well as the chronic administration of immunosuppressive medications can contribute to the development of malignancies in lupus. In this review we present the molecular pathology, as well as the epidemiological and clinical aspects of malignancies in patients with SLE.

Lupus and cancer

Individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have an increased susceptibility to certain types of cancer. Of particular concern are haematologic malignancies, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where a three- to four-fold increased risk is seen in SLE, compared with the general population. There is some evidence that immunosuppressive exposures play a role, although there appear to be other factors driving the risk. Lupus disease activity, with resultant dysregulated lymphocyte proliferation, may itself be a mediator of the association between SLE and lymphoma. Aside from haematologic malignancy risk, lung cancer also is increased in SLE compared with the general population, and smoking likely drives this risk in large part. Last but not least, cervical dysplasia is a concern in women with SLE, particularly with exposure to immunosuppressants; routine screening for this complication should not be neglected.

Systemic lupus erythematosus and breast cancer

There is evidence that certain connective tissue diseases such as scleroderma are associated with an increased risk of malignancy. Although it has been claimed that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) carries an increased risk of breast cancer, review of the available literature suggests that this is not the case, or, any increase is very small. Women with SLE do not need to be under close surveillance for breast cancer. In patients suffering from both SLE and breast cancer, radiotherapy has been regarded as relatively contraindicated because of fears concerning early and late complications. This view is not supported by the available literature and the majority of such cases can be treated by standard breast-conserving therapy, including breast irradiation.

Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Risk prediction models for breast cancer can be improved by the addition of recently identified risk factors, including breast density and use of hormone therapy. We used prospective risk information to predict a diagnosis of breast cancer in a cohort of 1 million women undergoing screening mammography.

METHODS

There were 2,392,998 eligible screening mammograms from women without previously diagnosed breast cancer who had had a prior mammogram in the preceding 5 years. Within 1 year of the screening mammogram, 11,638 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Separate logistic regression risk models were constructed for premenopausal and postmenopausal examinations by use of a stringent (P<.0001) criterion for the inclusion of risk factors. Risk models were constructed with 75% of the data and validated with the remaining 25%. Concordance of the predicted with the observed outcomes was assessed by a concordance (c) statistic after logistic regression model fit. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Statistically significant risk factors for breast cancer diagnosis among premenopausal women included age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and a prior breast procedure. For postmenopausal women, the statistically significant factors included age, breast density, race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, a prior breast procedure, body mass index, natural menopause, hormone therapy, and a prior false-positive mammogram. The model may identify high-risk women better than the Gail model, although predictive accuracy was only moderate. The c statistics were 0.631 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.644) for premenopausal women and 0.624 (95% CI = 0.619 to 0.630) for postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Breast density is a strong additional risk factor for breast cancer, although it is unknown whether reduction in breast density would reduce risk. Our risk model may be able to identify women at high risk for breast cancer for preventive interventions or more intensive surveillance.

An international cohort study of cancer in systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

There is increasing evidence in support of an association between systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and malignancy, but in earlier studies the association could not be quantified precisely. The present study was undertaken to ascertain the incidence of cancer in SLE patients, compared with that in the general population.

METHODS

We assembled a multisite (23 centers) international cohort of patients diagnosed as having SLE. Patients at each center were linked to regional tumor registries to determine cancer occurrence. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated as the ratio of observed to expected cancers. Cancers expected were determined by multiplying person-years in the cohort by the geographically matched age, sex, and calendar year-specific cancer rates, and summing over all person-years.

RESULTS

The 9,547 patients from 23 centers were observed for a total of 76,948 patient-years, with an average followup of 8 years. Within the observation interval, 431 cancers occurred. The data confirmed an increased risk of cancer among patients with SLE. For all cancers combined, the SIR estimate was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.05-1.27), for all hematologic malignancies, it was 2.75 (95% CI 2.13-3.49), and for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, it was 3.64 (95% CI 2.63-4.93). The data also suggested an increased risk of lung cancer (SIR 1.37; 95% CI 1.05-1.76), and hepatobiliary cancer (SIR 2.60; 95% CI 1.25, 4.78).

CONCLUSION

These results support the notion of an association between SLE and cancer and more precisely define the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in SLE. It is not yet known whether this association is mediated by genetic factors or exogenous exposures.