Adana A M Llanos1,2, Sheenu Chandwani3,4, Elisa V Bandera3,4, Kim M Hirshfield4,5, Yong Lin4,6, Christine B Ambrosone7, Kitaw Demissie3,4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Room 211, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA. Adana.Llanos@Rutgers.edu. 2. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Adana.Llanos@Rutgers.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Room 211, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA. 4. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 5. Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 7. Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examines the factors distinguishing breast cancer (BC) subtypes. METHODS: We examined subtypes in 629 women with invasive BC, diagnosed from 2006 to 2012, and enrolled in an epidemiological study in New Jersey. Using molecular characteristics from pathology reports, BCs were categorized as luminal A, luminal B, non-luminal HER2-expressing, or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. Multinomial logistic models (luminal A as referent) were used to describe BC subtype associations. RESULTS: Women with luminal B tumors were more likely to be younger at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.4] and to have higher-grade (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.7), larger (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6), and Ki67-positive tumors (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.0). Women with non-luminal HER2-expressing BCs were more likely to have higher-grade tumors (OR 14.5, 95% CI 5.3-39.7). Women with TNBCs were more likely to be African-American (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4) and to have higher-grade (OR 9.7, 95% CI 5.1-18.4), larger (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.8), and Ki67-positive (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.2) tumors. Notably, compared to the luminal A subtype, luminal B, non-luminal HER2-expressing, and triple-negative subtypes were more frequently self-detected; however, these associations were attenuated in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that some BC subtypes were associated with features denoting more aggressive phenotypes, namely higher grade, larger size, and Ki67 positivity, and possibly patient self-detection among some women. These findings highlight a need for enhanced screening, particularly among younger women, racial/ethnic minorities, and lower socioeconomic subgroups.
PURPOSE: This study examines the factors distinguishing breast cancer (BC) subtypes. METHODS: We examined subtypes in 629 women with invasive BC, diagnosed from 2006 to 2012, and enrolled in an epidemiological study in New Jersey. Using molecular characteristics from pathology reports, BCs were categorized as luminal A, luminal B, non-luminal HER2-expressing, or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. Multinomial logistic models (luminal A as referent) were used to describe BC subtype associations. RESULTS:Women with luminal B tumors were more likely to be younger at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.4] and to have higher-grade (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.7), larger (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6), and Ki67-positive tumors (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.0). Women with non-luminal HER2-expressing BCs were more likely to have higher-grade tumors (OR 14.5, 95% CI 5.3-39.7). Women with TNBCs were more likely to be African-American (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4) and to have higher-grade (OR 9.7, 95% CI 5.1-18.4), larger (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.8), and Ki67-positive (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.2) tumors. Notably, compared to the luminal A subtype, luminal B, non-luminal HER2-expressing, and triple-negative subtypes were more frequently self-detected; however, these associations were attenuated in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that some BC subtypes were associated with features denoting more aggressive phenotypes, namely higher grade, larger size, and Ki67 positivity, and possibly patient self-detection among some women. These findings highlight a need for enhanced screening, particularly among younger women, racial/ethnic minorities, and lower socioeconomic subgroups.
Entities:
Keywords:
African-American women; Aggressive phenotypes; Breast cancer; Clinicopathological factors; Subtypes
Authors: Aleix Prat; Maggie Chon U Cheang; Miguel Martín; Joel S Parker; Eva Carrasco; Rosalía Caballero; Scott Tyldesley; Karen Gelmon; Philip S Bernard; Torsten O Nielsen; Charles M Perou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Keith A Dookeran; James J Dignam; Karen Ferrer; Marin Sekosan; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Sarah Gehlert Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christine B Ambrosone; Gregory L Ciupak; Elisa V Bandera; Lina Jandorf; Dana H Bovbjerg; Gary Zirpoli; Karen Pawlish; James Godbold; Helena Furberg; Anne Fatone; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Song Yao; Yulin Li; Helena Hwang; Warren Davis; Michelle Roberts; Lara Sucheston; Kitaw Demissie; Kandace L Amend; Paul Tartter; James Reilly; Benjamin W Pace; Thomas Rohan; Joseph Sparano; George Raptis; Maria Castaldi; Alison Estabrook; Sheldon Feldman; Christina Weltz; Margaret Kemeny Journal: J Oncol Date: 2009-10-25 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Lena U Rosenberg; Sven Törnberg; Keith Humphreys; Per Hall Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ainash Childebayeva; Tamara R Jones; Jaclyn M Goodrich; Fabiola Leon-Velarde; Maria Rivera-Chira; Melisa Kiyamu; Tom D Brutsaert; Dana C Dolinoy; Abigail W Bigham Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Aishwarya Kulkarni; Antoinette M Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Stephanie M Hill; Jesse J Plascak; Adana A M Llanos Journal: Cancer Health Disparities Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Rohan Rao; Jasmine A McDonald; Emily S Barrett; Patricia Greenberg; Dede K Teteh; Susanne B Montgomery; Bo Qin; Yong Lin; Chi-Chen Hong; Christine B Ambrosone; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Adana A M Llanos Journal: Environ Res Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Elisa V Bandera; Kitaw Demissie; Bo Qin; Adana A M Llanos; Yong Lin; Baichen Xu; Karen Pawlish; Jesse J Plascak; Jennifer Tsui; Angela R Omilian; William McCann; Song Yao; Christine B Ambrosone; Chi-Chen Hong Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Holly A Szukis; Bo Qin; Cathleen Y Xing; Michelle Doose; Baichen Xu; Jennifer Tsui; Yong Lin; Kim M Hirshfield; Christine B Ambrosone; Kitaw Demissie; Chi-Chen Hong; Elisa V Bandera; Adana A M Llanos Journal: J Oncol Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Tara Friebel-Klingner; Sarah Ehsan; Wei He; Michaela Welch; Jinbo Chen; Despina Kontos; Susan M Domchek; Emily F Conant; Alan Semine; Kevin Hughes; Aditya Bardia; Constance Lehman; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Christine Brezden-Masley; Kelly E Fathers; Megan E Coombes; Behin Pourmirza; Cloris Xue; Katarzyna J Jerzak Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.872