Monika Eichholzer1, Dorothy J Huang2, Alexandra Modlasiak2, Seraina M Schmid3, Andreas Schötzau4, Sabine Rohrmann1, Uwe Güth5. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast center, Hospital Grabs, Basel, Switzerland ; Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Breast center, Hospital Grabs, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast center, Hospital Grabs, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Schötzau and Simmen Institute for Biomathematics, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast center, Hospital Grabs, Basel, Switzerland ; Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Breast center, Hospital Grabs, Basel, Switzerland ; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast center, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Switzerland.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body mass index; Breast cancer; Prognostic factors; Tumor detection; Tumor size
Authors: Amanda I Phipps; Christopher I Li; Karla Kerlikowske; William E Barlow; Diana S M Buist Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sherene Loi; Roger L Milne; Michael L Friedlander; Margaret R E McCredie; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Laura Ichikawa; Marianne N Prout; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Terry S Field; Cynthia Owusu; Ann M Geiger; Virginia P Quinn; Feifei Wei; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donnie Funch; Kathleen Mortimer; Ling Li; Heather Norman; Atheline Major-Pedersen; Anne Helene Olsen; Margit S Kaltoft; David D Dore Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: K Govind Babu; Abhishek Anand; Kuntegowdanahalli C Lakshmaiah; Dasappa Lokanatha; Linu Abraham Jacob; M C Suresh Babu; Kadabur N Lokesh; Haleshappa A Rudresha; Lakkavalli K Rajeev; Smitha C Saldanha; G V Giri; Chethan R; Deepak Koppaka; Dipti Panwar; Rekha V Kumar Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2018-06-26