Dataset Information

Initiators and promoters for the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer and the progression to clinically-detected interval breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The risk factors responsible for breast cancer have been well documented, but the roles of risk factors as initiators, causing the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer, or promoters, responsible for the progression of the screen-detected to the clinically-detected breast cancer, have been scarcely evaluated.

Methods

We used data from women in a cohort in Kopparberg (Dalarna), Sweden between 1977 and 2010. Conventional risk factors, breast density, and tumor-specific biomarkers are superimposed to the temporal course of the natural history of the disease.

Results

The results show that older age at first full-term pregnancy, dense breast, and a family history of breast cancer increased the risk of entering the preclinical screen-detectable phase of breast cancer by 23%, 41%, and 89%, respectively. Overweight/obesity (body mass index ?25 kg/m²) was a significant initiator (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.33), but was inversely associated with the role of promoter (aRR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82). Dense breast (aRR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12-1.91), triple-negative (aRR 2.07; 95% CI, 1.37-3.15), and Ki-67 positivity (aRR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.30) were statistically significant promoters. When the molecular biomarkers were considered collectively as one classification, the basal-like subtype was the most influential subtype on promoters (aRR 4.24; 95% CI, 2.56-7.02) compared with the Luminal A subtype.

Discussion

We ascertained state-dependent covariates of initiators and promoters to classify the risk of the two-step progression of breast cancer. The results of the current study are useful for individually-tailored screening and personalized clinical surveillance of patients with breast cancer that was detected at an early stage.

SUBMITTER: Yen AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5363784 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Case-control studies show that mammographic density is a better risk factor when defined at higher than conventional pixel-brightness thresholds. We asked if this applied to interval and/or screen-detected cancers. METHOD:We conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study including 168 women with interval and 422 with screen-detected breast cancers, and 498 and 1197 matched controls, respectively. We measured absolute and percent mammographic density using the Cumulus software at the conventional threshold (Cumulus) and two increasingly higher thresholds (Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively). Measures were transformed and adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI). Using conditional logistic regression and adjusting for BMI by age at mammogram, we estimated risk discrimination by the odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA), calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared nested models using the likelihood ratio criterion and models with the same number of parameters using the difference in Bayesian information criterion (?BIC). RESULTS:For interval cancer, there was very strong evidence that the association was best predicted by Cumulus as a percentage (OPERA?=?2.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.92); all ?BIC >?14), and the association with BMI was independent of age at mammogram. After adjusting for percent Cumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.1). For screen-detected cancer, however, the associations were strongest for the absolute and percent Cirrocumulus measures (all ?BIC >?6), and after adjusting for Cirrocumulus, no other measure was associated with risk (all P?>?0.07). CONCLUSION:The amount of brighter areas is the best mammogram-based measure of screen-detected breast cancer risk, while the percentage of the breast covered by white or bright areas is the best mammogram-based measure of interval breast cancer risk, irrespective of BMI. Therefore, there are different features of mammographic images that give clinically important information about different outcomes.

Project description:In the light of the breast density legislation in the USA, it is important to know a woman's breast cancer risk, but particularly her risk of a tumor that is not detected through mammographic screening (interval cancer). Therefore, we examined the associations of automatically measured volumetric breast density with screen-detected and interval cancer risk, separately.Volumetric breast measures were assessed automatically using Volpara version 1.5.0 (Matakina, New Zealand) for the first available digital mammography (DM) examination of 52,814 women (age 50?-?75 years) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We excluded all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed as a result of the first digital screening examination. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (IQR 2.0-6.2) years, 523 women were diagnosed with breast cancer of which 299 were screen-detected and 224 were interval breast cancers. The associations between volumetric breast measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards analyses.Percentage dense volume was found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (hazard ratio (HR) 8.37 (95% CI 4.34-16.17) and HR 1.39 (95% CI 0.82-2.36), respectively, for Volpara density grade category (VDG) 4 compared to VDG1 (p for heterogeneity?<?0.001)). Dense volume (DV) was also found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (HR 4.92 (95% CI 2.98-8.12) and HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.39-3.80), respectively, for VDG-like category (C)4 compared to C1 (p for heterogeneity?=?0.041)). The association between percentage dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 8.37) was not significantly stronger than the association between absolute dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 4.92).Our results suggest that both absolute dense volume and percentage dense volume are strong markers of breast cancer risk, but that they are even stronger markers for predicting the occurrence of tumors that are not detected during mammography breast cancer screening.

Project description:Objectives"True" breast cancers, defined as not being visible on prior screening mammograms, are expected to be more aggressive than "missed" cancers, which are visible in retrospect. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited. We compared the risk of death from any cause for women with true, minimal signs, and missed invasive screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancers (IC).MethodsThis nation-wide study included 1022 SDC and 788 IC diagnosed through BreastScreen Norway during 2005-2016. Cancers were classified as true, minimal signs, or missed by five breast radiologists in a consensus-based informed review of prior screening and diagnostic images. We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of death from any cause associated with true, minimal signs, and missed breast cancers, adjusting for age at diagnosis, histopathologic tumour diameter and grade, and subtype. Separate models were created for SDC and IC.ResultsAmong SDC, 463 (44%) were classified as true and 242 (23%) as missed; among IC, 325 (39%) were classified as true and 235 (32%) missed. Missed SDC were associated with a similar risk of death as true SDC (HR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.49, 2.46)). Similar results were observed for missed versus true IC (HR = 1.31, 95% CI (0.77, 2.23)).ConclusionsWe did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death for women diagnosed with true or missed SDC or IC; however, the number of cases reviewed and follow-up time limited the precision of our estimates.Key points• An informed radiological review classified screen-detected and interval cancers as true, minimal signs, or missed based on prior screening and diagnostic mammograms. • It has been hypothesised that true cancers, not visible on the prior screening examination, may be more aggressive than missed cancers. • We did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death from any cause for women with missed versus true screen-detected or interval breast cancers.