Epidemiology of triple negative breast cancers

Gierach, Gretchen L.; Burke, Aileen; Anderson, William F.

doi:10.3233/bd-2010-0319

Cited by 52 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(193 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Case-control studies that evaluated BMI in women irrespective of menopausal status and in postmenopausal women found no association with TNBC [58,60,61,62]. Pooling 2 case-control studies revealed a positive association between BMI and TNBC (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.0-7.5) in postmenopausal women not using HRT [58].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Body Mass Index on Prognostically Relevant Breast Cancer Tumor Characteristics

Eichholzer

Huang²,

Modlasiak³

et al. 2013

Breast Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study analyzes the association of body mass index (BMI) and prognostically relevant breast cancer (BC) characteristics in a country that has been rather spared of the global obesity epidemic. Patients and Methods: Based on 20-year data (1999-2009, n = 1,414) of the prospective relational BC database of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, the associations between BMI, tumor size and stage, histological subtype, grading, hormonal receptor status, HER2 status and ‘triple-negative' status were evaluated. Multivariate analysis considered BMI and patient's age. Results: The association between increasing BMI and the above-mentioned variables were as follows (results described in each case: Beta-coefficient or odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value): tumor size, (1) entire cohort: 0.03 (0.01-0.05), p < 0.001, (2) tumor found by self-palpation: 0.05 (0.03-0.07), p < 0.001, (3) tumor found by radiological examination: 0.03 (0-0.07), p = 0.044; advanced TNM stage: 1.16 (1.02-1.31), p = 0.022; histological subtype: 1.04 (0.89-1.22), p = 0.602; unfavorable grading: 1.11 (1.00-1.25), p = 0.057; positive estrogen receptor status: 0.95 (0.83-1.09), p = 0.459; positive HER2 status: 0.92 (0.74-1.15), p = 0.467; presence of a ‘triple-negative' carcinoma: 1.19 (0.93-1.52), p = 0.165. Consideration of only postmenopausal BC patients (n = 1,063) did attenuate the results, but did not change the direction of the associations with BMI. Conclusion: BMI was positively associated with TNM stage, grading and tumor size for tumors that were found by self-detection, as well as for those lesions detected by radiological breast examinations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data examining obesity as a risk factor for TNBC are limited and inconsistent [59,60]. Case-control studies that evaluated BMI in women irrespective of menopausal status and in postmenopausal women found no association with TNBC [58,60,61,62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Body Mass Index on Prognostically Relevant Breast Cancer Tumor Characteristics

Eichholzer

Huang²,

Modlasiak³

et al. 2013

Breast Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, distinct risk factors for HR-negative (ER-negative, or joint ER-PR) cancer are debated [2,3,8,12] and the etiologies of ER+PR+ and ER-PR- tumors remain unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive factors and risk of hormone receptor positive and negative breast cancer: a cohort study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe association of reproductive factors with hormone receptor (HR)-negative breast tumors remains uncertain.MethodsWithin the EPIC cohort, Cox proportional hazards models were used to describe the relationships of reproductive factors (menarcheal age, time between menarche and first pregnancy, parity, number of children, age at first and last pregnancies, time since last full-term childbirth, breastfeeding, age at menopause, ever having an abortion and use of oral contraceptives [OC]) with risk of ER-PR- (n = 998) and ER+PR+ (n = 3,567) breast tumors.ResultsA later first full-term childbirth was associated with increased risk of ER+PR+ tumors but not with risk of ER-PR- tumors (≥35 vs. ≤19 years HR: 1.47 [95% CI 1.15-1.88] ptrend < 0.001 for ER+PR+ tumors; ≥35 vs. ≤19 years HR: 0.93 [95% CI 0.53-1.65] ptrend = 0.96 for ER-PR- tumors; P het = 0.03). The risk associations of menarcheal age, and time period between menarche and first full-term childbirth with ER-PR-tumors were in the similar direction with risk of ER+PR+ tumors (phet = 0.50), although weaker in magnitude and statistically only borderline significant. Other parity related factors such as ever a full-term birth, number of births, age- and time since last birth were associated only with ER+PR+ malignancies, however no statistical heterogeneity between breast cancer subtypes was observed. Breastfeeding and OC use were generally not associated with breast cancer subtype risk.ConclusionOur study provides possible evidence that age at menarche, and time between menarche and first full-term childbirth may be associated with the etiology of both HR-negative and HR-positive malignancies, although the associations with HR-negative breast cancer were only borderline significant.

show abstract

“…As will be discussed later in the next section on "Knowledge Gaps," the epidemiology of TNBC is not well known (Gierach, Burke, Anderson, 2010;Boyle, 2012) and the burden of TNBC in the general population is still unclear (Dolle et al, 2009). This is not surprising since the distinction between breast cancer molecular subtypes was only first reported in 2000 (Perou et al, 2000).…”

Section: Epidemiology Of Triple-negative Breast Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the molecular and clinical correlates of TNBC are still being delineated, the epidemiology of TNBC is clearly not well known (Gierach, Burke, & Anderson, 2010;Boyle, 2012) and the burden of TNBC in the general population is still very unclear (Dolle et al, 2009). Specific, accurate and up to date information from large population studies on the incidence, prevalence and mortality of TNBC in the US is still lacking (Boyle, 2012).…”

Section: Triple Negative Breast Cancer Knowledge Gaps and Unmet mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants and Disparities of Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Design Utilizing the Cox Proportional Hazard Analytical Model

Belcon¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epidemiology of triple negative breast cancers

Cited by 52 publications

References 71 publications

Impact of Body Mass Index on Prognostically Relevant Breast Cancer Tumor Characteristics

Impact of Body Mass Index on Prognostically Relevant Breast Cancer Tumor Characteristics

Reproductive factors and risk of hormone receptor positive and negative breast cancer: a cohort study

Determinants and Disparities of Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Design Utilizing the Cox Proportional Hazard Analytical Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About