METHODS: We built two models, for ER+ (ModelER+) and ER- tumors (ModelER-), respectively, in 281,330 women (51% postmenopausal at recruitment) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (the agreement between predicted and observed tumor risks) were assessed both internally and externally in 82,319 postmenopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative study. We performed decision curve analysis to compare ModelER+ and the Gail model (ModelGail) regarding their applicability in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
RESULTS: Parity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy and body height were only associated with ER+ tumors. Menopausal status, age at menarche and at menopause, hormone replacement therapy, postmenopausal body mass index, and alcohol intake were homogeneously associated with ER+ and ER- tumors. Internal validation yielded a C-statistic of 0.64 for ModelER+ and 0.59 for ModelER-. External validation reduced the C-statistic of ModelER+ (0.59) and ModelGail (0.57). In external evaluation of calibration, ModelER+ outperformed the ModelGail: the former led to a 9% overestimation of the risk of ER+ tumors, while the latter yielded a 22% underestimation of the overall BC risk. Compared with the treat-all strategy, ModelER+ produced equal or higher net benefits irrespective of the benefit-to-harm ratio of chemoprevention, while ModelGail did not produce higher net benefits unless the benefit-to-harm ratio was below 50. The clinical applicability, i.e. the area defined by the net benefit curve and the treat-all and treat-none strategies, was 12.7 × 10- 6 for ModelER+ and 3.0 × 10- 6 for ModelGail.
CONCLUSIONS: Modeling heterogeneous epidemiological risk factors might yield little improvement in BC risk prediction. Nevertheless, a model specifically predictive of ER+ tumor risk could be more applicable than an omnibus model in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
METHODS: The cytotoxic effect of hydromethanolic extract of A. crispa and its solvents partitions (ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts) against breast cancer cells were evaluated by using MTT assay. The cells were treated with concentration of extracts ranging from 15.63 μg/mL- 1000 μg/mL for 72 h. The quantification of phenolic and flavonoid contents of the extracts were carried out to determine the relationship between of phytochemical compounds responsible for cytotoxic and antioxidative activities. The antioxidant capacity was measured by DPPH and ABTS free radical scavenging assay and expressed as milligram (mg) Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity per 1 g (g) of tested extract.
RESULTS: The hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts showed moderate cytotoxic effect against MCF-7 with IC50 values of 57.35 ± 19.33 μg/mL, and 54.98 ± 14.10 μg/mL, respectively but aqueous extract was inactive against MCF-7. For MDA-MB-231, hydromethanolic, ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts exhibited weak cytotoxic effects against MDA-MB-231 with IC50 values more than 100 μg/mL. The plant revealed high total phenolic content, total flavonoid and antioxidant capacity.
CONCLUSION: The response of different type of breast cancer cell lines towards A. crispa extract and its partitions varied. Accordingly, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts appear to be more cytotoxic to oestrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer than oestrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. However, aqueous extract appears to have poor activity to both types of breast cancer. Besides that, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts exhibit higher TPC, TFC and antioxidant capacity compared to aqueous extract. Synergistic effect of anticancer and antioxidant bioactives compounds of A. crispa plausibly contributed to the cytotoxic effects of the extract.