Opportunities for molecular epidemiological research on ductal carcinoma in-situ and breast carcinogenesis: interdisciplinary approaches

Epidemiologic Risk Factors for In Situ and Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study

Comparing risk factor associations between invasive breast cancers and possible precursors may further our understanding of factors related to initiation versus progression. Accordingly, among 190,325 postmenopausal participants in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study (1995-2011), we compared the association between risk factors and incident ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS; n = 1,453) with that of risk factors and invasive ductal carcinomas (n = 7,525); in addition, we compared the association between risk factors and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS; n = 186) with that of risk factors and invasive lobular carcinomas (n = 1,191). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. We used case-only multivariable logistic regression to test for heterogeneity in associations. Younger age at menopause was associated with a higher risk of DCIS but lower risks of LCIS and invasive ductal carcinomas (P for heterogeneity < 0.01). Prior breast biopsy was more strongly associated with the risk of LCIS than the risk of DCIS (P for heterogeneity = 0.04). Increased risks associated with use of menopausal hormone therapy were stronger for LCIS than DCIS (P for heterogeneity = 0.03) and invasive lobular carcinomas (P for heterogeneity < 0.01). Associations were similar for race, age at menarche, age at first birth, family history, alcohol consumption, and smoking status, which suggests that most risk factor associations are similar for in situ and invasive cancers and may influence early stages of tumorigenesis. The differential associations observed for various factors may provide important clues for understanding the etiology of certain breast cancers.

The hallmarks of premalignant conditions: a molecular basis for cancer prevention

The hallmarks of premalignant lesions were first described in the 1970s, a time when relatively little was known about the molecular underpinnings of cancer. Yet it was clear there must be opportunities to intervene early in carcinogenesis. A vast array of molecular information has since been uncovered, with much of this stemming from studies of existing cancer or cancer models. Here, examples of how an understanding of cancer biology has informed cancer prevention studies are highlighted and emerging areas that may have implications for the field of cancer prevention research are described. A note of caution accompanies these examples, in that while there are similarities, there are also fundamental differences between the biology of premalignant lesions or premalignant conditions and invasive cancer. These differences must be kept in mind, and indeed leveraged, when exploring potential cancer prevention measures.

Screening mammography: update and review of publications since our report in the New England Journal of Medicine on the magnitude of the problem in the United States

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

After a half century of clinical trials, expansive observations, vigorous advocacy and debate, screening mammography could not be in a more controversial condition, especially the potential harm of overdiagnosis. Despite a simple rationale (catch the cancer early and either prevent death or at least decrease the amount of therapy needed for cure), the estimates to date of overdiagnosis rates are conflicting and the interpretations complex.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since the author's 2012 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the peer-reviewed publications on overdiagnosis caused by screening mammography are reviewed and the NEJM analyses updated with three additional calendar years of results.

RESULTS

The recent peer-reviewed medical literature on screening mammography induced overdiagnosis of breast cancer has increased exponentially, nearly 10-fold in 10 years. The average estimate of overdiagnosis is about 30%, but the range extends from 0% to 70+%. An update of the NEJM report estimates that in the US, 78,000 women and 30%-31% of those diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or older during 2011 were overdiagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Until we have better screening procedures that identify who really has cancer and needs to be treated, the risk of overdiagnosis relative to the benefit of screening merits more effective public and professional education. Radiologists, pathologists, and other professionals involved with screening mammography should recognize that the potential harm of overdiagnosis is downplayed or not discussed with the patient and family, despite agreement that the objective is informed choice.

Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy

BACKGROUND

Mammographic density (MD), the area of non-fatty-appearing tissue divided by total breast area, is a strong breast cancer risk factor. Most MD analyses have used visual categorizations or computer-assisted quantification, which ignore breast thickness. We explored MD volume and area, using a volumetric approach previously validated as predictive of breast cancer risk, in relation to risk factors among women undergoing breast biopsy.

METHODS

Among 413 primarily white women, ages 40 to 65 years, undergoing diagnostic breast biopsies between 2007 and 2010 at an academic facility in Vermont, MD volume (cm(3)) was quantified in craniocaudal views of the breast contralateral to the biopsy target using a density phantom, whereas MD area (cm(2)) was measured on the same digital mammograms using thresholding software. Risk factor associations with continuous MD measurements were evaluated using linear regression.

RESULTS

Percent MD volume and area were correlated (r = 0.81) and strongly and inversely associated with age, body mass index (BMI), and menopause. Both measures were inversely associated with smoking and positively associated with breast biopsy history. Absolute MD measures were correlated (r = 0.46) and inversely related to age and menopause. Whereas absolute dense area was inversely associated with BMI, absolute dense volume was positively associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Volume and area MD measures exhibit some overlap in risk factor associations, but divergence as well, particularly for BMI.

IMPACT

Findings suggest that volume and area density measures differ in subsets of women; notably, among obese women, absolute density was higher with volumetric methods, suggesting that breast cancer risk assessments may vary for these techniques.