The effect of parity and oral contraceptive (OC) use on breast cancer risk differs by cancer subtype as defined by histology. Family history of breast cancer impacts decisions regarding both parity and oral contraceptive use; it is unknown whether reproductive risk factors are related to uncommon histologies in women with and without a strong family history. Methods: Using population-based data from the Breast Cancer Family Registry, we conducted analyses using unordered polytomous regression to determine the role of family history in associations between parity, OC use, and breast cancer histologic subtype, among 3,260 cases and 2,997 controls. Histologic types examined included ductal and lobular as well as the uncommon histologies of mucinous, tubular, and medullary cancer. Results: Twenty-eight percent of cases and 9% of controls had a family history (defined as at least 1 first-degree relative with breast cancer). Cases with and without family history were similar in regards to OC use (75% and 73%, respectively were ever-users) and parity (2.08 children in cases with family history, 2.10 in cases without). In a multivariable model, when compared with controls, OC use was inversely associated with tumors of mucinous histology (OR ¼ 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79 for use !5 years vs. never use). There was a stronger inverse association with OC use and the mucinous subtype among those without a family history (OR ¼ 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.57), and a nonsignificant positive association in those with family history (OR ¼ 2.19, 95% CI 0.40-11.84). High parity (!3 children) was positively associated with medullary histology (OR ¼ 2.62, 95% CI 1.16-5.91, compared with nulliparity); the association was stronger among women without a family history (OR ¼ 4.31, 95% CI 1.67-11.12), and was not significantly associated among those with a family history (OR ¼ 0.36, 95% CI 0.06-2.29). Parity was inversely associated with the mucinous type (OR ¼ 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.96, compared with nulliparity), and this effect remained stable in women with and without family history. Conclusion: This study suggests that selected reproductive risk factors may only be related to uncommon breast cancer histologies among women without a family history of breast cancer.
(95% CI, 1.18-1.51) among never or former smokers (p-trend < 0.001). This positive trend for PCa mortality was mainly observed among men with BMI measured more than 5 years before diagnosis, and among those age >65 years old at diagnosis. Compared with never smokers, current smokers had significantly elevated risk of PCa death, with a HR of 1.92 (95% CI, 1.52-2.43) regardless of the time of measurement, age at diagnosis and BMI. After further adjusting for tumor stage and grade, the association between BMI, smoking and PCa death was attenuated but remained statistical significant. CON-CLUSIONS: In this consortium study of eight large cohorts, smoking and overweight/obesity before diagnosis were significant predictors for subsequent PCa-specific mortality. Smoking significantly modifies the association of BMI and PCa-specific mortality. observed in their birth country and in the US. This transition of risk may partly be explained by uptake of risk factors associated with acculturation. Investigating whether immigration and acculturation risk patterns are similarly reflected in disease biomarkers can provide insight into mechanisms underlying the transition of risk. We examined differences in the distribution of BC risk factors, absolute risk estimates and mammographic density by ethnicity and acculturation. We used data from 366 women recruited from an urban mammography clinic (ages 40-64 years) to compare BC risk factors and Gail model risk estimates across US-born white, US-born African American [AA], US-born Hispanic and foreign-born Hispanic women. We used linear regression models to examine the associations of immigration and acculturation indicators (e.g., generational status, age and life stage at immigration, language use) with percent density and dense breast area, measured from mammograms. Differences in BC risk factors were mostly observed for ethnic groups, with white women having higher reproductive and lifestyle risk profiles (e.g., lower parity, older age at first birth, higher alcohol intake), Hispanics having shorter height and AAs having larger body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. The average lifetime and 5-year Gail estimates were highest in whites (11.4% & 1.4%), intermediate in AAs (7.2% & 1.0%) and lowest in Hispanics (6.9% & 0.7% in US-born and 6.6% & 0.8% in foreign-born). After adjusting for age, BMI and parity, lower linguistic acculturation, shorter residence in the US, and later age at immigration were associated with lower percent density (all p values for trend across acculturation levels <0.05); e.g., monolingual Spanish and bilingual speakers respectively had on average 5.6% (95% CI, À10.0-À1.3) and 3.8% (95% CI, À8.1-0.4) lower percent density than monolingual English speakers. Similar but more modest associations were observed for dense area. The increase in BC risk after immigration to the US and subsequent acculturation may operate via influences on mammographic density in Hispanic women. Hamilton JG, Salerno M, Amoroso K, Sheehan M, Harlan Fleischut M, Glogowski E, S...
Background: Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), tamoxifen and raloxifene, are FDA-approved for breast cancer (BC) risk reduction. However, uptake has been poor in the prevention setting, partly due to a lack of knowledge in the medical community about BC prevention and public misconceptions about the risks of SERMs. We assessed demographic and clinical factors that influence SERM uptake among high-risk women seen in an academic breast center, where specialized risk counseling is provided by a breast surgeon or medical oncologist. Methods: Potential subjects included high-risk women seen for an initial consultation by Breast Surgery or Medical Oncology. Eligibility for SERM use included a 5-year Gail risk ≥1.67%, lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), BRCA mutation carrier, or estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Demographic and BC risk factor data was collected from self-administered questionnaires. Clinical data, including prior/current SERM use, was abstracted from medical chart review. Differences in distribution of risk factors, between women who ever took a SERM and those who did not, were examined using chi-square statistics or Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals using SERM use as the dependent variable. Results: Among 247 high-risk women enrolled between March 2007 and January 2011, median age 51 (17-82); White/Hispanic/Black/Asian (%): 55/32/7/6. 85% of women were undergoing annual mammography, 94% had a breast biopsy, 19% genetic testing, and 71% Medical Oncology referral. Among 181 (73%) women eligible for a SERM, Gail risk ≥1.67%/LCIS/DCIS/BRCA mutation (%): 35/22/39/3; 83 (46%) ever took a SERM, including 62 on tamoxifen and 21 on raloxifene. Early SERM discontinuation was only 7%. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors of SERM uptake included risk category (DCIS vs. Gail risk ≥1.67%/LCIS/BRCA mutation), higher income, higher body mass index (BMI), and referral to Medical Oncology. In terms of this high-risk population meeting American Cancer Society (ACS) behavioral guidelines for cancer prevention, 53% had a BMI <25 kg/m2, 44% consumed ≤1 alcoholic beverage per day, and 10% engaged in ≥4 hours of moderate physical activity per week; only 3.5% met all 3 recommendations. Conclusions: Among high-risk women seen at a specialized breast center, application of clinical recommendations such as screening mammography, genetic testing, and SERM uptake were relatively high, suggesting that a comprehensive approach to the management of high-risk women is feasible. However, meeting ACS nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer prevention was limited, perhaps due to a lack of reimbursable staff to implement these guidelines. Breast cancer risk assessment and available interventions for prevention among high-risk women are underutilized in the U.S. Future studies should focus on the development and delivery of breast cancer prevention strategies. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-06.
The effect of parity and oral contraceptive (OC) use on breast cancer risk differs by cancer subtype as defined by histology. Family history of breast cancer impacts decisions regarding both parity and oral contraceptive use; it is unknown whether reproductive risk factors are related to uncommon histologies in women with and without a strong family history. Methods: Using population-based data from the Breast Cancer Family Registry, we conducted analyses using unordered polytomous regression to determine the role of family history in associations between parity, OC use, and breast cancer histologic subtype, among 3,260 cases and 2,997 controls. Histologic types examined included ductal and lobular as well as the uncommon histologies of mucinous, tubular, and medullary cancer. Results: Twenty-eight percent of cases and 9% of controls had a family history (defined as at least 1 first-degree relative with breast cancer). Cases with and without family history were similar in regards to OC use (75% and 73%, respectively were ever-users) and parity (2.08 children in cases with family history, 2.10 in cases without). In a multivariable model, when compared with controls, OC use was inversely associated with tumors of mucinous histology (OR ¼ 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79 for use !5 years vs. never use). There was a stronger inverse association with OC use and the mucinous subtype among those without a family history (OR ¼ 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.57), and a nonsignificant positive association in those with family history (OR ¼ 2.19, 95% CI 0.40-11.84). High parity (!3 children) was positively associated with medullary histology (OR ¼ 2.62, 95% CI 1.16-5.91, compared with nulliparity); the association was stronger among women without a family history (OR ¼ 4.31, 95% CI 1.67-11.12), and was not significantly associated among those with a family history (OR ¼ 0.36, 95% CI 0.06-2.29). Parity was inversely associated with the mucinous type (OR ¼ 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.96, compared with nulliparity), and this effect remained stable in women with and without family history. Conclusion: This study suggests that selected reproductive risk factors may only be related to uncommon breast cancer histologies among women without a family history of breast cancer.
This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.
Background: Chemoprevention with antiestrogens, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors (AIs), reduces breast cancer incidence in high-risk women. However, uptake has been poor in the prevention setting. We examined demographic and clinical factors that influenced chemoprevention uptake in women with an elevated Gail risk score (≥1.67%), lobular/ductal carcinoma in situ (LCIS/DCIS), and/or BRCA mutation carriers. Methods: We enrolled women prospectively without a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, who were seen for an initial consultation by breast surgery or medical oncology at Columbia University Medical Center. Eligibility for chemoprevention included a 5-year Gail risk ≥1.67%, LCIS, known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, or hormone receptor (HR)-positive DCIS. Demographic and risk factor data were collected from a self-administered baseline questionnaire and clinical data from medical chart review, including prior/current chemoprevention, type of antiestrogen, duration of use, and toxicities. Differences in distribution of risk factors between women who ever took chemoprevention and those who did not were examined using chi-square statistics or Fisher's exact test. We used log-binomial regression models to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using chemoprevention uptake as the dependent variable. A subset of high-risk women completed questionnaires assessing their attitudes towards chemoprevention and perceived risks/benefits. Results: Among 412 women enrolled between March 2007 and April 2013, 316 (77%) were eligible for chemoprevention. Main reasons for ineligibility included 5-year Gail risk <1.67% (40%), age <35 (24%), HR-negative DCIS (17%), opting for bilateral mastectomies (11%), and medical contraindications (8%). Among those eligible for chemoprevention, median age 53 (26-88); White/Hispanic/Black/Asian/other (%): 55/29/8/7/1; risk category, 5-year Gail risk ≥1.67%/LCIS/DCIS/BRCA mutation (%): 36/22/40/2. Overall, 162 (51%) women started an antiestrogen (72% for DCIS and 37% among high-risk women), including 114 on tamoxifen, 40 on raloxifene, and 11 on an AI. Early discontinuation occurred in 27 (18%) women, but 7 switched to a different antiestrogen. In univariable analysis, postmenopausal status and medical oncology referral were associated with higher chemoprevention uptake. In multivariable analysis, only higher risk was a significant predictor of chemoprevention uptake. Among the subset of women who completed additional questionnaires on attitudes towards chemoprevention, they reported that the most important factors in chemoprevention decision-making included their healthcare provider (50%), results of chemoprevention studies (44%), and knowledge about others’ experience with chemoprevention (44%). The majority (69%) were concerned about side effects, specifically blood clots with tamoxifen and raloxifene and bone fractures with AIs. Conclusions: In high-risk women seen at an academic breast center, chemoprevention uptake was relatively high compared to the published literature. Further research is needed to determine how the risks and benefits of chemoprevention are best communicated to women to enhance informed decision-making and increase uptake of chemoprevention strategies. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P5-13-01.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.