BACKGROUND: The Gail model has been commonly used to estimate a woman's risk of breast cancer within a certain time period. High bone mineral density (BMD) is also a significant risk factor for breast cancer, but it appears to play no role in the Gail model. The objective of the current study was to investigate whether hip BMD predicts postmenopausal breast cancer risk independently of the Gail score. METHODS: In this prospective study, 9941 postmenopausal women who had a baseline hip BMD and Gail score from the Women's Health Initiative were included in the analysis. Their average age was 63.0 +/- 7.4 years at baseline. RESULTS: After an average of 8.43 years of follow-up, 327 incident breast cancer cases were reported and adjudicated. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the hazards ratios (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for incident breast cancer were 1.35 (95% CI, 1.05-1.73) for high Gail score (>or=1.67%) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.40) for each unit of increase in the total hip BMD T-score. Restricting the analysis to women with both BMD and a Gail score above the median, a sharp increase in incident breast cancer for women with the highest BMD and Gail scores was found (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of BMD to the prediction of incident postmenopausal breast cancer across the entire population was found to be independent of the Gail score. However, among women with both high BMD and a high Gail score, there appears to be an interaction between these 2 factors. These findings suggest that BMD and Gail score may be used together to better quantify the risk of breast cancer. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The Gail model has been commonly used to estimate a woman's risk of breast cancer within a certain time period. High bone mineral density (BMD) is also a significant risk factor for breast cancer, but it appears to play no role in the Gail model. The objective of the current study was to investigate whether hip BMD predicts postmenopausal breast cancer risk independently of the Gail score. METHODS: In this prospective study, 9941 postmenopausal women who had a baseline hip BMD and Gail score from the Women's Health Initiative were included in the analysis. Their average age was 63.0 +/- 7.4 years at baseline. RESULTS: After an average of 8.43 years of follow-up, 327 incident breast cancer cases were reported and adjudicated. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the hazards ratios (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for incident breast cancer were 1.35 (95% CI, 1.05-1.73) for high Gail score (>or=1.67%) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11-1.40) for each unit of increase in the total hip BMD T-score. Restricting the analysis to women with both BMD and a Gail score above the median, a sharp increase in incident breast cancer for women with the highest BMD and Gail scores was found (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of BMD to the prediction of incident postmenopausal breast cancer across the entire population was found to be independent of the Gail score. However, among women with both high BMD and a high Gail score, there appears to be an interaction between these 2 factors. These findings suggest that BMD and Gail score may be used together to better quantify the risk of breast cancer. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Jennifer Hays; Julie R Hunt; F Allan Hubbell; Garnet L Anderson; Marian Limacher; Catherine Allen; Jacques E Rossouw Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Y Zhang; D P Kiel; B E Kreger; L A Cupples; R C Ellison; J F Dorgan; A Schatzkin; D Levy; D T Felson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-02-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Andrew N Freedman; Daniela Seminara; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge; Graham A Colditz; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-05-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd; Jennifer Creasman; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Steve R Cummings Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chris R Cardwell; Christian C Abnet; Philip Veal; Carmel M Hughes; Marie M Cantwell; Liam J Murray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joanne F Dorgan; Lea Liu; Catherine Klifa; Nola Hylton; John A Shepherd; Frank Z Stanczyk; Linda G Snetselaar; Linda Van Horn; Victor J Stevens; Alan Robson; Peter O Kwiterovich; Norman L Lasser; John H Himes; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Andrea Kriska; Elizabeth H Ruder; Carolyn Y Fang; Bruce A Barton Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Kathleen M Hovey; Jane A Cauley; Christopher A Andrews; Jeffrey R Curtis; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Nicole C Wright; Wenjun Li; Meryl S LeBoff Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: William D Leslie; Suzanne N Morin; Lisa M Lix; Saroj Niraula; Eugene V McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Nicholas C Harvey; John A Kanis Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-07-10
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Aaron Aragaki; Jane A Cauley; JoAnn E Manson; Erin LeBlanc; Robert Wallace; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Andrea LaCroix; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Mara Vitolins; Nelson B Watts Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Kathleen M Hovey; Christopher A Andrews; Jane A Cauley; JoAnn E Manson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Nicole C Wright; Wenjun Li; Kristen Beavers; Jeffrey R Curtis; Meryl S LeBoff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 5.958