BACKGROUND: Prior to 1999-2000, breast cancer incidence rates had risen for decades, though more among older than younger women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To further explore the impact of advancing age-at-diagnosis upon breast cancer incidence, we used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program (1974-2003). RESULTS: Over time, we observed age interactions by tumor grade, stage, and race. For example, among women ages <40 years, high-grade lesions were more common than low-grade tumors for all time periods. Among women ages 40+ years, high-grade lesions were more common during early time periods then trend lines crossed, after which low-grade tumors were more common than high-grade lesions. Notably, the transition (crossover point) occurred earlier with advancing age-at-diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The reversal (crossing) of incidence rates from high to low-grade tumors among women 40+ years is a qualitative age interaction, probably due to changing age-related risk factor and/or screening patterns, where mammography preferentially detected tumors of low malignant potential among older women. Though once thought to be rare or artifactual, qualitative age interactions suggest breast cancer heterogeneity. Indeed, if real, qualitative age interactions (effect modifications) imply different etiologic pathways for early-onset and late-onset types of breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Prior to 1999-2000, breast cancer incidence rates had risen for decades, though more among older than younger women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To further explore the impact of advancing age-at-diagnosis upon breast cancer incidence, we used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program (1974-2003). RESULTS: Over time, we observed age interactions by tumor grade, stage, and race. For example, among women ages <40 years, high-grade lesions were more common than low-grade tumors for all time periods. Among women ages 40+ years, high-grade lesions were more common during early time periods then trend lines crossed, after which low-grade tumors were more common than high-grade lesions. Notably, the transition (crossover point) occurred earlier with advancing age-at-diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The reversal (crossing) of incidence rates from high to low-grade tumors among women 40+ years is a qualitative age interaction, probably due to changing age-related risk factor and/or screening patterns, where mammography preferentially detected tumors of low malignant potential among older women. Though once thought to be rare or artifactual, qualitative age interactions suggest breast cancer heterogeneity. Indeed, if real, qualitative age interactions (effect modifications) imply different etiologic pathways for early-onset and late-onset types of breast cancer.
Authors: Tasha R Smith; Wen Liu-Mares; Beth O Van Emburgh; Edward A Levine; Glenn O Allen; Jeff W Hill; Isildinha M Reis; Laura A Kresty; Mark D Pegram; Mark S Miller; Jennifer J Hu Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Heather Ann Brauer; Monica D'Arcy; Tanya E Libby; Henry J Thompson; Yutaka Y Yasui; Nobuyuki Hamajima; Christopher I Li; Melissa A Troester; Paul D Lampe Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Chunyuan Fei; Dale P Sandler; Hazel B Nichols; Lisa A DeRoo; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Aleix Prat; Charles M Perou; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Winnie Yeo; Hang-Mei Lee; Amy Chan; Emily Yy Chan; Miranda Cm Chan; Keeng-Wai Chan; Sharon Ww Chan; Foon-Yiu Cheung; Polly Sy Cheung; Peter Hk Choi; Josette Sy Chor; William Wl Foo; Wing-Hong Kwan; Stephen Ck Law; Lawrence Pk Li; Janice Wh Tsang; Yuk Tung; Lorna Ls Wong; Ting-Ting Wong; Chun-Chung Yau; Tsz-Kok Yau; Benny Cy Zee Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-10
Authors: Briseis A Kilfoy; Susan S Devesa; Mary H Ward; Yawei Zhang; Philip S Rosenberg; Theodore R Holford; William F Anderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lynn Chollet-Hinton; Andrew F Olshan; Hazel B Nichols; Carey K Anders; Jennifer L Lund; Emma H Allott; Traci N Bethea; Chi-Chen Hong; Stephanie M Cohen; Thaer Khoury; Gary R Zirpoli; Virginia F Borges; Lynn A Rosenberg; Elisa V Bandera; Christine B Ambrosone; Julie R Palmer; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Graça M Dores; Rayna K Matsuno; Dennis D Weisenburger; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 6.998