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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the association between plasma phospholipid fatty acids and breast cancer risk in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Sixty fatty acids were measured by gas chromatography in pre-diagnostic plasma phospholipids from 2982 incident breast cancer cases matched to 2982 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk of breast cancer by fatty acid level. The false discovery rate (q values) was computed to control for multiple comparisons. Subgroup analyses were carried out by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor expression in the tumours.
RESULTS: A high level of palmitoleic acid [odds ratio (OR) for the highest quartile compared with the lowest OR (Q4-Q1) 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.64; P for trend = 0.0001, q value = 0.004] as well as a high desaturation index (DI16) (16:1n-7/16:0) [OR (Q4-Q1), 1.28; 95% C, 1.07-1.54; P for trend = 0.002, q value = 0.037], as biomarkers of de novo lipogenesis, were significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Levels of industrial trans-fatty acids were positively associated with ER-negative tumours [OR for the highest tertile compared with the lowest (T3-T1)=2.01; 95% CI, 1.03-3.90; P for trend = 0.047], whereas no association was found for ER-positive tumours (P-heterogeneity =0.01). No significant association was found between n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk, overall or by hormonal receptor.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that increased de novo lipogenesis, acting through increased synthesis of palmitoleic acid, could be a relevant metabolic pathway for breast tumourigenesis. Dietary trans-fatty acids derived from industrial processes may specifically increase ER-negative breast cancer risk.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 women in Shah Alam, Selangor; Malaysia. The questionnaire contained 27 questions and was comprised of two sections; socio-demographic characteristics and practices, knowledge and barriers of mammography. All the data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0.
RESULTS: Of the 200 Malaysian women who participated in this study, the majority were under the age of 50 years (65.5%), Malay (86%), and married (94.5%). Regarding any family history of cancer in general, the majority of the participants had none (78%). However, some did report a close relative with breast cancer (16.5%). While the majority of them knew about mammography (68%), 15% had had a mammogram once in their life and only 2% had the procedure every two or three years. Univariate analysis showed that age, family history of cancer, family history of breast cancer, regular supplement intake, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammogram were significantly associated with mammogram practice among the general population (p=0.007, p=0.043, P=0.015, p=0.01, p=0.001, p<0.001; respectively). Multivariate analysis using multiple linear regression test showed that age, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammography testing were statistically associated with the practice of mammography among the general population in Malaysia (p=0.035, p=0.015 and p<0.001; respectively). Lack of time, lack of knowledge, not knowing where to go for the test and a fear of the test result were the most important barriers (42.5%, 32%, 21%, 20%; respectively).
CONCLUSION: The practice of mammogram screening is low among Malaysian women.