Karla Kerlikowske1, Charlotte C Gard1, Jeffrey A Tice1, Elad Ziv1, Steven R Cummings1, Diana L Miglioretti1. 1. Affiliations of authors: Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (KK, JAT, EZ) and General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs (KK), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Department of Economics, Applied Statistics, and International Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM (CCG); San Francisco Coordinating Center, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA (SRC); Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA (DLM); Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA (DLM).
Abstract
Background: Risk factors may differentially influence development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive vs -negative breast cancer. We examined associations with strong, prevalent risk factors by ER subtype. Methods: Of 1 279 443 women age 35 to 74 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 14 969 developed ER-positive and 3617 developed ER-negative invasive breast cancer. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression and compared ER subtype hazard ratios at representative ages or by menopausal status using Wald tests. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: For women age 40 years, compared with no prior biopsy, ER-positive vs ER-negative HRs were 1.53 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.81) vs 1.26 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.76) for nonproliferative disease, 1.63 (95% CI = 1.23 to 2.17) vs 1.41 (95% CI = 0.78 to 2.57) for proliferative disease without atypia, and 4.47 (95% CI = 2.88 to 6.96) vs 0.20 (95% CI = 0.02 to 2.51) for proliferative disease with atypia. Benign disease proliferation risk was stronger for ER-positive than ER-negative cancer for women age 35 years (Wald P = .04), age 40 years (Wald P = .04), and age 50 years (Wald P = .06). Among pre/perimenopausal women, body mass index (BMI) had a stronger association with ER-negative than ER-positive cancer (obese II/III vs. normal weight: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.94; vs 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.36). Increasing BMI similarly increased ER-positive and ER-negative cancer risk among postmenopausal hormone users (Wald P = .15) and nonusers (Wald P = .08). Associations with ER subtype varied by race/ethnicity across all ages (P < .001) and by family history of breast cancer and breast density for specific ages. Conclusions: Strength of risk factor associations differed by ER subtype. Separate risk models for ER subtypes may improve identification of women for targeted prevention strategies.
Background: Risk factors may differentially influence development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive vs -negative breast cancer. We examined associations with strong, prevalent risk factors by ER subtype. Methods: Of 1 279 443 women age 35 to 74 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 14 969 developed ER-positive and 3617 developed ER-negative invasive breast cancer. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression and compared ER subtype hazard ratios at representative ages or by menopausal status using Wald tests. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: For women age 40 years, compared with no prior biopsy, ER-positive vs ER-negative HRs were 1.53 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.81) vs 1.26 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.76) for nonproliferative disease, 1.63 (95% CI = 1.23 to 2.17) vs 1.41 (95% CI = 0.78 to 2.57) for proliferative disease without atypia, and 4.47 (95% CI = 2.88 to 6.96) vs 0.20 (95% CI = 0.02 to 2.51) for proliferative disease with atypia. Benign disease proliferation risk was stronger for ER-positive than ER-negative cancer for women age 35 years (Wald P = .04), age 40 years (Wald P = .04), and age 50 years (Wald P = .06). Among pre/perimenopausal women, body mass index (BMI) had a stronger association with ER-negative than ER-positive cancer (obese II/III vs. normal weight: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.94; vs 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.36). Increasing BMI similarly increased ER-positive and ER-negative cancer risk among postmenopausal hormone users (Wald P = .15) and nonusers (Wald P = .08). Associations with ER subtype varied by race/ethnicity across all ages (P < .001) and by family history of breast cancer and breast density for specific ages. Conclusions: Strength of risk factor associations differed by ER subtype. Separate risk models for ER subtypes may improve identification of women for targeted prevention strategies.
Authors: David L Page; Peggy A Schuyler; William D Dupont; Roy A Jensen; W Dale Plummer; Jean F Simpson Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-01-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wei-Tse Yang; Mark Dryden; Kristine Broglio; Michael Gilcrease; Shaheenah Dawood; Peter J Dempsey; Vicente Valero; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Deann Atchley; Banu Arun Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-11-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Arati Desai; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana S M Buist Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J P Sloane; R Ellman; T J Anderson; C L Brown; J Coyne; N S Dallimore; J D Davies; D Eakins; I O Ellis; C W Elston Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Rod Walker; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hongjie Chen; Lusine Yaghjyan; Christopher Li; Ulrike Peters; Bernard Rosner; Sara Lindström; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Joshua Demb; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Brian Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Elad Ziv; Louise C Walter; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Halei C Benefield; Emily C Zabor; Yue Shan; Emma H Allott; Colin B Begg; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Geffen Kleinstern; Christopher G Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Matthew R Jensen; V Shane Pankratz; Kimberly A Bertrand; Aaron D Norman; Daniel W Visscher; Fergus J Couch; Kathleen Brandt; John Shepherd; Fang-Fang Wu; Yunn-Yi Chen; Steven R Cummings; Stacey Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Yiwey Shieh; Donglei Hu; Lin Ma; Scott Huntsman; Charlotte C Gard; Jessica W T Leung; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven R Cummings Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ayca Gucalp; Xi K Zhou; Elise D Cook; Judy E Garber; Katherine D Crew; Julie R Nangia; Priya Bhardwaj; Dilip D Giri; Olivier Elemento; Akanksha Verma; Hanhan Wang; J Jack Lee; Lana A Vornik; Carrie Mays; Diane Weber; Valerie Sepeda; Holly O'Kane; Margaret Krasne; Samantha Williams; Patrick G Morris; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Barbara K Dunn; Clifford A Hudis; Powel H Brown; Andrew J Dannenberg Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-02-16
Authors: Mia M Gaudet; Gretchen L Gierach; Brian D Carter; Juhua Luo; Roger L Milne; Elisabete Weiderpass; Graham G Giles; Rulla M Tamimi; A Heather Eliassen; Bernard Rosner; Alicja Wolk; Hans-Olov Adami; Karen L Margolis; Susan M Gapstur; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Louise A Brinton Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Natalie J Engmann; Marzieh K Golmakani; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777