BACKGROUND: The combination of increased parity and shorter breastfeeding duration might increase the odds of the least differentiated triple-negative breast cancer (BC) phenotype, theoretically because an expanded progenitor cell population from each pregnancy would incompletely differentiate postpartum. METHODS: Subjects consisted of a consecutive case series of 2473 women treated for invasive breast cancer between 2001 and 2006. Breast cancer phenotype (triple-negative BC, vs non-triple-negative BC) was compared with reproductive and demographic information. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of breastfeeding duration (months per child) and parity with triple-negative BC were calculated after adjusting for ethnicity, age at menarche, family history, and age at diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared with non-triple-negative BC, triple-negative BC was associated with shorter duration of breastfeeding per child (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and with higher parity (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). By using multivariate logistic regression, triple-negative BC was independently associated with higher parity (OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.86-4.08] if ≥3 live births; OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.30-2.74] if ≤2 live births vs nulliparae), breastfeeding duration (OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41-0.74] if >2 mo/child and OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42-0.82] if ≤2 mo/child vs none), African American ethnicity (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.52-2.92), and younger age at diagnosis (OR, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.03-4.47] if ≤40 years vs >60 years). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with invasive breast cancer, higher parity and the absence or short duration of breastfeeding were independently associated with triple-negative BC. Any duration of breastfeeding was found to be associated with lower probability of triple-negative BC, and the odds of this phenotype decreased with increasing duration of breastfeeding.
BACKGROUND: The combination of increased parity and shorter breastfeeding duration might increase the odds of the least differentiated triple-negative breast cancer (BC) phenotype, theoretically because an expanded progenitor cell population from each pregnancy would incompletely differentiate postpartum. METHODS: Subjects consisted of a consecutive case series of 2473 women treated for invasive breast cancer between 2001 and 2006. Breast cancer phenotype (triple-negative BC, vs non-triple-negative BC) was compared with reproductive and demographic information. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of breastfeeding duration (months per child) and parity with triple-negative BC were calculated after adjusting for ethnicity, age at menarche, family history, and age at diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared with non-triple-negative BC, triple-negative BC was associated with shorter duration of breastfeeding per child (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and with higher parity (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). By using multivariate logistic regression, triple-negative BC was independently associated with higher parity (OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.86-4.08] if ≥3 live births; OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.30-2.74] if ≤2 live births vs nulliparae), breastfeeding duration (OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41-0.74] if >2 mo/child and OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42-0.82] if ≤2 mo/child vs none), African American ethnicity (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.52-2.92), and younger age at diagnosis (OR, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.03-4.47] if ≤40 years vs >60 years). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with invasive breast cancer, higher parity and the absence or short duration of breastfeeding were independently associated with triple-negative BC. Any duration of breastfeeding was found to be associated with lower probability of triple-negative BC, and the odds of this phenotype decreased with increasing duration of breastfeeding.
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Stephen R Cole; Lawrence S Engel; Jeannette T Bensen; Charles Poole; Amy H Herring; Robert C Millikan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tess O'Meara; Anton Safonov; David Casadevall; Tao Qing; Andrea Silber; Brigid Killelea; Christos Hatzis; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Juhua Luo; Candyce H Kroenke; Michael Hendryx; Aladdin H Shadyab; Nianjun Liu; Xiwei Chen; Fengge Wang; Fridtjof Thomas; Nazmus Saquib; Lihong Qi; Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Rhonda Arthur; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-07 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Maria Elena Martinez; Betsy C Wertheim; Loki Natarajan; Richard Schwab; Melissa Bondy; Adrian Daneri-Navarro; Maria Mercedes Meza-Montenegro; Luis Enrique Gutierrez-Millan; Abenaa Brewster; Ian K Komenaka; Patricia A Thompson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Sibgat Choudhury; Vanessa Almendro; Vanessa F Merino; Zhenhua Wu; Reo Maruyama; Ying Su; Filipe C Martins; Mary Jo Fackler; Marina Bessarabova; Adam Kowalczyk; Thomas Conway; Bryan Beresford-Smith; Geoff Macintyre; Yu-Kang Cheng; Zoila Lopez-Bujanda; Antony Kaspi; Rong Hu; Judith Robens; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Vilde D Haakensen; Stuart J Schnitt; Pedram Argani; Gabrielle Ethington; Laura Panos; Michael Grant; Jason Clark; William Herlihy; S Joyce Lin; Grace Chew; Erik W Thompson; April Greene-Colozzi; Andrea L Richardson; Gedge D Rosson; Malcolm Pike; Judy E Garber; Yuri Nikolsky; Joanne L Blum; Alfred Au; E Shelley Hwang; Rulla M Tamimi; Franziska Michor; Izhak Haviv; X Shirley Liu; Saraswati Sukumar; Kornelia Polyak Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 24.633