Search

Abstract Background Genome-wide studies of gene–environment interactions (G×E) may identify variants associated with disease risk in conjunction with lifestyle/environmental exposures. We conducted a genome-wide G×E analysis of ~ 7.6 million common variants and seven lifestyle/environmental risk factors for breast cancer risk overall and for estrogen receptor positive (ER +) breast cancer. Methods Analyses were conducted using 72,285 breast cancer cases and 80,354 controls of European ancestry from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Gene–environment interactions were evaluated using standard unconditional logistic regression models and likelihood ratio tests for breast cancer risk overall and for ER + breast cancer. Bayesian False Discovery Probability was employed to assess the noteworthiness of each SNP-risk factor pairs. Results Assuming a 1 × 10–5 prior probability of a true association for each SNP-risk factor pairs and a Bayesian False Discovery Probability

Mice with breast cancer driven by mutations upstream of the PI3K/Akt insulin signaling pathway are found to be responsive to dapagliflozin, while those driven by mutations downstream of PI3K/Akt or in pathways with other driver mutations did not.

Abstract Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality among Latinas. As more is learned about the association between mammographic breast density (MBD) and breast cancer risk, a number of U.S. states adopted legislation and now a federal law mandates written notification of MBD along with mammogram results. These notifications vary in content and readability, though, which may limit their effectiveness and create confusion or concern, especially among women with low health literacy or barriers to screening. The purpose of this study is to determine whether educational enhancement of MBD notification results in increased knowledge, decreased anxiety, and adherence to continued mammography screening among Latina women in a limited-resources setting. Methods Latinas LEarning About Density (LLEAD) is a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing the impact of three notification approaches on behavioral and psychological outcomes in Latina women. Approximately 2000 Latinas undergoing screening mammography in a safety-net community clinic will be randomized 1:1:1 to mailed notification (usual care); mailed notification plus written educational materials (enhanced); or mailed notification, written educational materials, plus verbal explanation by a promotora (interpersonal). The educational materials and verbal explanations are available in Spanish or English. Mechanisms through which written or verbal information influences future screening motivation and behavior will be examined, as well as moderating factors such as depression and worry about breast cancer, which have been linked to diagnostic delays among Latinas. The study includes multiple psychological measures (anxiety, depression, knowledge about MBD, perceived risk of breast cancer, worry, self-efficacy) and behavioral outcomes (continued adherence to mammography). Measurement time points include enrollment, 2–4 weeks post-randomization, and 1 and 2 years post-randomization. Qualitative inquiry related to process and outcomes of the interpersonal arm and cost analysis related to its implementation will be undertaken to understand the intervention’s delivery and transferability. Discussion Legislation mandating written MBD notification may have unintended consequences on behavioral and psychological outcomes, particularly among Latinas with limited health literacy and resources. This study has implications for cancer risk communication and will offer evidence on the potential of generalizable educational strategies for delivering information on breast density to Latinas in limited-resource settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02910986. Registered on 21 September 2016. Items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set can be found in this protocol.

Abstract Background Mammographic breast density, adjusted for age and body mass index, and a polygenic risk score (PRS), comprised of common genetic variation, are both strong risk factors for breast cancer and increase discrimination of risk models. Understanding their joint contribution will be important to more accurately predict risk. Methods Using 3628 breast cancer cases and 5126 controls of European ancestry from eight case-control studies, we evaluated joint associations of a 77-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) PRS and quantitative mammographic density measures with breast cancer. Mammographic percent density and absolute dense area were evaluated using thresholding software and examined as residuals after adjusting for age, 1/BMI, and study. PRS and adjusted density phenotypes were modeled both continuously (per 1 standard deviation, SD) and categorically. We fit logistic regression models and tested the null hypothesis of multiplicative joint associations for PRS and adjusted density measures using likelihood ratio and global and tail-based goodness of fit tests within the subset of six cohort or population-based studies. Results Adjusted percent density (odds ratio (OR) = 1.45 per SD, 95% CI 1.38–1.52), adjusted absolute dense area (OR = 1.34 per SD, 95% CI 1.28–1.41), and the 77-SNP PRS (OR = 1.52 per SD, 95% CI 1.45–1.59) were associated with breast cancer risk. There was no evidence of interaction of the PRS with adjusted percent density or dense area on risk of breast cancer by either the likelihood ratio (P > 0.21) or goodness of fit tests (P > 0.09), whether assessed continuously or categorically. The joint association (OR) was 2.60 in the highest categories of adjusted PD and PRS and 0.34 in the lowest categories, relative to women in the second density quartile and middle PRS quintile. Conclusions The combined associations of the 77-SNP PRS and adjusted density measures are generally well described by multiplicative models, and both risk factors provide independent information on breast cancer risk.

Abstract Background Patient-reports of cancer treatments are sometimes used in oncology research and clinically when medical records are unavailable. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of patient recall in this setting. Materials and methods Participants were recruited through an email request from the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation Army of Women seeking women diagnosed with breast cancer under age 50 and within the past ten years, self-reporting to have been treated with chemotherapy. After informed consent, participants received a web-based survey that inquired about use of and type of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy received. Medical records were reviewed, and discrepancies were defined as patient-report of a different class of drug than documented in the medical record, failing to report a documented class of drug, or responding “don’t know.” Results Of 171 eligible participants, completed questionnaires and medical records were available for 102 (60%). Median age at diagnosis was 41 years (range 25–49), and median time from diagnosis was 65.5 months (range 7–131). Ninety-two percent had completed college. Receipt of chemotherapy was documented in the medical records of 100% of these women who self-reported a personal history of chemotherapy, and there was also 98% concordance regarding receipt of endocrine therapy (yes vs. no). However, discrepancies were identified in 29% of patients regarding chemotherapy types. Time since diagnosis did not increase the likelihood of discrepancies. Conclusion Highly educated young women diagnosed with breast cancer more than five years prior accurately report whether or not they received broad systemic treatment categories. However, self-reports regarding specific drugs should be confirmed by medical record review.