Literature DB >> 17372238

Differences in risk factors for breast cancer molecular subtypes in a population-based study.

Xiaohong R Yang1, Mark E Sherman, David L Rimm, Jolanta Lissowska, Louise A Brinton, Beata Peplonska, Stephen M Hewitt, William F Anderson, Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Alicja Bardin-Mikolajczak, Witold Zatonski, Richard Cartun, Daniza Mandich, Grzegorz Rymkiewicz, Marcin Ligaj, Stanislaw Lukaszek, Radzisaw Kordek, Montserrat García-Closas.   

Abstract

Analysis of gene expression data suggests that breast cancers are divisible into molecular subtypes which have distinct clinical features. This study evaluates whether pathologic features and etiologic associations differ among molecular subtypes. We evaluated 804 women with invasive breast cancers and 2,502 controls participating in a Polish Breast Cancer Study. Immunohistochemical stains for estrogen receptor alpha, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptors (HER2 and HER1), and cytokeratin 5 were used to classify cases into five molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2-expresing, basal-like, and unclassified. Relative risks were estimated using adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We observed that compared with the predominant luminal A tumors (69%), other subtypes were associated with unfavorable clinical features at diagnosis, especially HER2-expressing (8%) and basal-like (12%) tumors. Increasing body mass index significantly reduced the risk of luminal A tumors among premenopausal women (odds ratios, 0.71; 95% confidence intervals, 0.57-0.88 per five-unit increase), whereas it did not reduce risk for basal-like tumors (1.18; 0.86-1.64; P(heterogeneity) = 0.003). On the other hand, reduced risk associated with increasing age at menarche was stronger for basal-like (0.78; 0.68-0.89 per 2-year increase) than luminal A tumors (0.90; 0.95-1.08; P(heterogeneity) = 0.0009). Although family history increased risk for all subtypes (except for unclassified tumors), the magnitude of the relative risk was highest for basal-like tumors. Results from this study have shown that breast cancer risk factors may vary by molecular subtypes identified in expression studies, suggesting etiologic, in addition to clinical, heterogeneity of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17372238     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0806

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  213 in total

1.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and breast cancer risk: differences by molecular subtype.

Authors:  Theodore M Brasky; Matthew R Bonner; Kirsten B Moysich; Christine B Ambrosone; Jing Nie; Meng Hua Tao; Stephen B Edge; Bhaskar V S Kallakury; Catalin Marian; David S Goerlitz; Maurizio Trevisan; Peter G Shields; Jo L Freudenheim
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2011-04-23       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Rulla M Tamimi; Graham A Colditz; Aditi Hazra; Heather J Baer; Susan E Hankinson; Bernard Rosner; Jonathan Marotti; James L Connolly; Stuart J Schnitt; Laura C Collins
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Microbiome, bile acids, and obesity: How microbially modified metabolites shape anti-tumor immunity.

Authors:  Laura M Sipe; Mehdi Chaib; Ajeeth K Pingili; Joseph F Pierre; Liza Makowski
Journal:  Immunol Rev       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 12.988

4.  Reproductive history and risk of three breast cancer subtypes defined by three biomarkers.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Diana S M Buist; Kathleen E Malone; William E Barlow; Peggy L Porter; Karla Kerlikowske; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer.

Authors:  Robert C Millikan; Beth Newman; Chiu-Kit Tse; Patricia G Moorman; Kathleen Conway; Lynn G Dressler; Lisa V Smith; Miriam H Labbok; Joseph Geradts; Jeannette T Bensen; Susan Jackson; Sarah Nyante; Chad Livasy; Lisa Carey; H Shelton Earp; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Carol Sweeney; Philip S Bernard; Rachel E Factor; Marilyn L Kwan; Laurel A Habel; Charles P Quesenberry; Kaylynn Shakespear; Erin K Weltzien; Inge J Stijleman; Carole A Davis; Mark T W Ebbert; Adrienne Castillo; Lawrence H Kushi; Bette J Caan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Body size and risk of luminal, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Kathleen E Malone; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Reproductive factors and risk of estrogen receptor positive, triple-negative, and HER2-neu overexpressing breast cancer among women 20-44 years of age.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Elisabeth F Beaber; Mei-Tzu Chen Tang; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Kathleen E Malone
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-12-09       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Clinicopathological features and prognosis of triple negative breast cancer in Kuwait: A comparative/perspective analysis.

Authors:  Mohammed S Fayaz; Mustafa S El-Sherify; Amany El-Basmy; Sadeq A Zlouf; Nashwa Nazmy; Thomas George; Susan Samir; Gerges Attia; Heba Eissa
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2013-09-26

10.  Luminal breast cancer classification according to proliferative indices: clinicopathological characteristics and short-term survival analysis.

Authors:  Yan Sun; Gang Nie; Zhimin Wei; Zhidong Lv; Xiaoyi Liu; Haibo Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.