Mia M Gaudet1, Emily Deubler2, W Ryan Diver2, Samantha Puvanesarajah2, Alpa V Patel2, Ted Gansler2, Mark E Sherman3, Susan M Gapstur2. 1. Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. mia.gaudet@cancer.org. 2. Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. 3. Departments of Epidemiology and of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinical College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for women at high risk of symptom-detected breast cancers that were missed by screening would enable targeting of enhanced screening regimens. To this end, we examined associations of breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection in screened women from the Cancer Prevention Study (CPS)-II Nutrition Cohort. METHODS: Among 77,206 women followed for a median of 14.8 years, 2711 screen-detected and 1281 symptom-detected breast cancer cases were diagnosed. Multivariable-adjusted associations were estimated using joint Cox proportional hazards regression models with person-time calculated contingent on screening. RESULTS: Factors associated with higher risks of symptom-detected and screen-detected breast cancer included current combined hormone therapy (HT) use (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.72-2.48 and 1.45, 1.27-1.65, respectively) and history of benign breast disease (1.85, 1.64-2.08 and 1.43, 1.31-1.55, respectively). Current estrogen-only HT use was associated with symptom-detected (1.40, 1.15-1.71) but not screen-detected (0.95, 0.83-1.09) breast cancer. Higher risk of screen-detected but not symptom-detected breast cancer was observed for obese vs. normal body mass index (1.22, 1.01-1.48 and 0.76, 0.56-1.01, respectively), per 3 h/day sitting time (1.10, 1.04-1.16 and 0.97, 0.89-1.06, respectively), and ≥ 2 drinks per day vs. nondrinker (1.40, 1.16-1.69 and 1.27, 0.97-1.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in risk factors for symptom-detected vs. screen-detected breast cancer were observed and most notably, use of combined and estrogen-only HT and a history of benign breast disease were associated with increased risk of symptomatic detected breast cancer. IMPACT: If confirmed, these data suggest that such women may benefit from more intensive screening to facilitate early detection.
BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for women at high risk of symptom-detected breast cancers that were missed by screening would enable targeting of enhanced screening regimens. To this end, we examined associations of breast cancer risk factors by mode of detection in screened women from the Cancer Prevention Study (CPS)-II Nutrition Cohort. METHODS: Among 77,206 women followed for a median of 14.8 years, 2711 screen-detected and 1281 symptom-detected breast cancer cases were diagnosed. Multivariable-adjusted associations were estimated using joint Cox proportional hazards regression models with person-time calculated contingent on screening. RESULTS: Factors associated with higher risks of symptom-detected and screen-detected breast cancer included current combined hormone therapy (HT) use (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.72-2.48 and 1.45, 1.27-1.65, respectively) and history of benign breast disease (1.85, 1.64-2.08 and 1.43, 1.31-1.55, respectively). Current estrogen-only HT use was associated with symptom-detected (1.40, 1.15-1.71) but not screen-detected (0.95, 0.83-1.09) breast cancer. Higher risk of screen-detected but not symptom-detected breast cancer was observed for obese vs. normal body mass index (1.22, 1.01-1.48 and 0.76, 0.56-1.01, respectively), per 3 h/day sitting time (1.10, 1.04-1.16 and 0.97, 0.89-1.06, respectively), and ≥ 2 drinks per day vs. nondrinker (1.40, 1.16-1.69 and 1.27, 0.97-1.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in risk factors for symptom-detected vs. screen-detected breast cancer were observed and most notably, use of combined and estrogen-only HT and a history of benign breast disease were associated with increased risk of symptomatic detected breast cancer. IMPACT: If confirmed, these data suggest that such women may benefit from more intensive screening to facilitate early detection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Benign breast disease; Breast cancer; Disease heterogeneity; Mammography; Risk factors
Authors: Johanna Holm; Keith Humphreys; Jingmei Li; Alexander Ploner; Abbas Cheddad; Mikael Eriksson; Sven Törnberg; Per Hall; Kamila Czene Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Samantha Puvanesarajah; Susan M Gapstur; Alpa V Patel; Mark E Sherman; W Dana Flanders; Ted Gansler; Melissa A Troester; Mia M Gaudet Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Norman F Boyd; Ella Huszti; Olga Melnichouk; Lisa J Martin; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: G C Wishart; D C Greenberg; P D Britton; P Chou; C H Brown; A D Purushotham; S W Duffy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 7.640
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: Pragati G Advani; Lindsay M Morton; Cari M Kitahara; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Cody Ramin; Megan R Haymart; Rochelle E Curtis; Sara J Schonfeld Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.890