Johanna Holm1, Keith Humphreys2, Jingmei Li2, Alexander Ploner2, Abbas Cheddad2, Mikael Eriksson2, Sven Törnberg2, Per Hall2, Kamila Czene2. 1. Johanna Holm, Keith Humphreys, Jingmei Li, Alexander Ploner, Abbas Cheddad, Mikael Eriksson, Per Hall, and Kamila Czene, Karolinska Institutet; Sven Törnberg, Stockholm-Gotland Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm, Sweden; and Jingmei Li, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Johanna.holm@ki.se. 2. Johanna Holm, Keith Humphreys, Jingmei Li, Alexander Ploner, Abbas Cheddad, Mikael Eriksson, Per Hall, and Kamila Czene, Karolinska Institutet; Sven Törnberg, Stockholm-Gotland Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm, Sweden; and Jingmei Li, Genome Institute of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare tumor characteristics and risk factors of interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers, taking mammographic density into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in Stockholm, Sweden, with data on tumor characteristics (n = 4,091), risk factors, and mammographic density (n = 1,957) were included. Logistic regression was used to compare interval breast cancers with screen-detected breast cancers, overall and by highest and lowest quartiles of percent mammographic density. RESULTS: Compared with screen-detected breast cancers, interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (≤ 20% mammographic density) were significantly more likely to exhibit lymph node involvement (odds ratio [OR], 3.55; 95% CI, 1.74 to 7.13) and to be estrogen receptor negative (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.25), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.64 to 17.01), progesterone receptor negative (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.38), and triple negative (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 1.21 to 22.46). In contrast, interval breast cancers in dense breasts (> 40.9% mammographic density) were less aggressive than interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (overall difference, P = .008) and were phenotypically more similar to screen-detected breast cancers. Risk factors differentially associated with interval breast cancer relative to screen-detected breast cancer after adjusting for age and mammographic density were family history of breast cancer (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.70), current use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44), and body mass index more than 25 kg/m(2) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.82). CONCLUSION: Interval breast cancers in women with low mammographic density have the most aggressive phenotype. The effect of HRT on interval breast cancer risk is not fully explained by mammographic density. Family history is associated with interval breast cancers, possibly indicating disparate genetic background of screen-detected breast cancers and interval breast cancers.
PURPOSE: To compare tumor characteristics and risk factors of interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers, taking mammographic density into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2001 to 2008 in Stockholm, Sweden, with data on tumor characteristics (n = 4,091), risk factors, and mammographic density (n = 1,957) were included. Logistic regression was used to compare interval breast cancers with screen-detected breast cancers, overall and by highest and lowest quartiles of percent mammographic density. RESULTS: Compared with screen-detected breast cancers, interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (≤ 20% mammographic density) were significantly more likely to exhibit lymph node involvement (odds ratio [OR], 3.55; 95% CI, 1.74 to 7.13) and to be estrogen receptor negative (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.25), humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 1.64 to 17.01), progesterone receptor negative (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.38), and triple negative (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 1.21 to 22.46). In contrast, interval breast cancers in dense breasts (> 40.9% mammographic density) were less aggressive than interval breast cancers in nondense breasts (overall difference, P = .008) and were phenotypically more similar to screen-detected breast cancers. Risk factors differentially associated with interval breast cancer relative to screen-detected breast cancer after adjusting for age and mammographic density were family history of breast cancer (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.70), current use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44), and body mass index more than 25 kg/m(2) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.82). CONCLUSION:Interval breast cancers in women with low mammographic density have the most aggressive phenotype. The effect of HRT on interval breast cancer risk is not fully explained by mammographic density. Family history is associated with interval breast cancers, possibly indicating disparate genetic background of screen-detected breast cancers and interval breast cancers.
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher I Li; Brian L Sprague; Katrina Armstrong Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Benjamin Hinton; Lin Ma; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Bo Fan; Heather Greenwood; Bonnie Joe; Vivian Lee; Fredrik Strand; Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Siun M Walsh; Sandra B Brennan; Emily C Zabor; Laura H Rosenberger; Michelle Stempel; Lizza Lebron-Zapata; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mia M Gaudet; Emily Deubler; W Ryan Diver; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Alpa V Patel; Ted Gansler; Mark E Sherman; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506