Search

Cancer prevalence data for Black Americans is monolithic and fails to consider the diverse cultures and backgrounds within that community. For instance, African immigrants constitute a meaningful proportion of the foreign-born Black immigrants in the United States (42%), but the prevalence of cancer in the African immigrant community itself is unknown. Therefore, without accurate cancer prevalence data, it is impossible to identify trends and other key factors that are needed to support the health of African immigrants and their children. Moreover, it is impossible to understand how the culture and language of subgroups influence their cancer-related health behavior. While research in this area is limited, the existing literature articulates the need for culturally responsive and culturally tailored cancer education for African immigrants and their adolescent children, which is what we advocate for in this viewpoint paper. Existing projects demonstrate the feasibility of culturally responsive programming for adults; however, few projects include or focus on adolescents or children born to African immigrants. To best meet the needs of this understudied community, researchers must use culturally competent interventions alongside familiar, usable media. For adolescents, technology is ubiquitous thus, the creation of a culturally tailored digital intervention has immense potential to improve cancer awareness and prevention for youth and their community. More research is needed to address many of the existing research gaps and develop a rich understanding of the unique experience of cancer among African immigrant families that can be used to inform intervention development. Through this viewpoint, we review the current state of cancer-related research among African immigrant families in the United States. In this paper, we acknowledge the current knowledge gaps and issues surrounding measurement and then discuss the factors relevant to designing an educational intervention targeted at African immigrants and the role of African immigrant youth.

Rural populations continue to experience persistent cancer disparities compared with urban populations particularly in cancers that can be prevented or detected early through screening and vaccination. Although the National Cancer Institute and the larger cancer research community have identified rural community partnerships as the foundation for reducing the disparities, we have identified limited application of community-based participatory research in cancer prevention and control research. Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and our collective experience, we provide a framework for a community-cancer center partnership that focuses on promoting health equity. In this commentary, we articulate that the partnership process must foster capacity for communities and cancer centers, strive for rural representation in clinical trials and biobanking, build a pipeline for dissemination and implementation research, and create a bidirectional flow of knowledge between communities and academic institutions. Authentic partnerships with rural communities should be the ultimate goal of cancer centers, and the process described in this commentary can serve as an initial platform to build capacity and continue to strive toward that goal.

BackgroundEarly initiation of breast cancer screening is recommended for high-risk women, including survivors of childhood cancer treated with chest radiation. Recent studies suggest that female survivors of childhood leukemia or sarcoma treated without chest radiation are also at elevated early onset breast cancer risk. However, the potential clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of early breast cancer screening among these women are uncertain.MethodsUsing data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we adapted 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation models to reflect the elevated risks of breast cancer and competing mortality among leukemia and sarcoma survivors. Costs and utility weights were based on published studies and databases. Outcomes included breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive screening results, benign biopsies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsIn the absence of screening, the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer among survivors was 6.8% to 7.0% across models. Early initiation of annual mammography with breast magnetic resonance imaging screening between ages 25 and 40 years would avert 52.6% to 64.3% of breast cancer deaths. When costs and quality-of-life impacts were considered, screening starting at age 40 years was the only strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost-effectiveness threshold ($27 680 to $44 380 per QALY gained across models).ConclusionsAmong survivors of childhood leukemia or sarcoma, early initiation of breast cancer screening at age 40 years may reduce breast cancer deaths by half and is cost-effective. These findings could help inform screening guidelines for survivors treated without chest radiation.

PurposeTo determine the contribution of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in hereditary cancer testing panel genes to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast.Materials and methodsThe study included 2,999 women with ILC from a population-based cohort and 3,796 women with ILC undergoing clinical multigene panel testing (clinical cohort). Frequencies of germline PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were compared between women with ILC and unaffected female controls and between women with ILC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC).ResultsThe frequency of PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes among women with ILC was 6.5% in the clinical cohort and 5.2% in the population-based cohort. In case-control analysis, CDH1 and BRCA2 PVs were associated with high risks of ILC (odds ratio [OR] > 4) and CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs were associated with moderate (OR = 2-4) risks. BRCA1 PVs and CHEK2 p.Ile157Thr were not associated with clinically relevant risks (OR < 2) of ILC. Compared with IDC, CDH1 PVs were > 10-fold enriched, whereas PVs in BRCA1 were substantially reduced in ILC.ConclusionThe study establishes that PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with an increased risk of ILC, whereas BRCA1 PVs are not. The similar overall PV frequencies for ILC and IDC suggest that cancer histology should not influence the decision to proceed with genetic testing. Similar to IDC, multigene panel testing may be appropriate for women with ILC, but CDH1 should be specifically discussed because of low prevalence and gastric cancer risk.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted breast cancer control through short-term declines in screening and delays in diagnosis and treatments. We projected the impact of COVID-19 on future breast cancer mortality between 2020 and 2030.MethodsThree established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models modeled reductions in mammography screening use, delays in symptomatic cancer diagnosis, and reduced use of chemotherapy for women with early-stage disease for the first 6 months of the pandemic with return to prepandemic patterns after that time. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of key model parameters, including the duration of the pandemic impact.ResultsBy 2030, the models project 950 (model range = 860-1297) cumulative excess breast cancer deaths related to reduced screening, 1314 (model range = 266-1325) associated with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic cases, and 151 (model range = 146-207) associated with reduced chemotherapy use in women with hormone positive, early-stage cancer. Jointly, 2487 (model range = 1713-2575) excess breast cancer deaths were estimated, representing a 0.52% (model range = 0.36%-0.56%) cumulative increase over breast cancer deaths expected by 2030 in the absence of the pandemic's disruptions. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the breast cancer mortality impact would be approximately double if the modeled pandemic effects on screening, symptomatic diagnosis, and chemotherapy extended for 12 months.ConclusionsInitial pandemic-related disruptions in breast cancer care will have a small long-term cumulative impact on breast cancer mortality. Continued efforts to ensure prompt return to screening and minimize delays in evaluation of symptomatic women can largely mitigate the effects of the initial pandemic-associated disruptions.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a near-total cessation of mammography services in the United States in mid-March 2020. It is unclear if screening and diagnostic mammography volumes have recovered to prepandemic levels and whether use has varied by women's characteristics.MethodsWe collected data on 461 083 screening mammograms and 112 207 diagnostic mammograms conducted during January 2019 through July 2020 at 62 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We compared monthly screening and diagnostic mammography volumes before and during the pandemic stratified by age, race and ethnicity, breast density, and family history of breast cancer.ResultsScreening and diagnostic mammography volumes in April 2020 were 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5% to 2.4%) and 21.4% (95% CI = 18.7% to 24.4%) of the April 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively, but by July 2020 had rebounded to 89.7% (95% CI = 79.6% to 101.1%) and 101.6% (95% CI = 93.8% to 110.1%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively. The year-to-date cumulative volume of screening and diagnostic mammograms performed through July 2020 was 66.2% (95% CI = 60.3% to 72.6%) and 79.9% (95% CI = 75.4% to 84.6%), respectively, of year-to-date volume through July 2019. Screening mammography rebound was similar across age groups and by family history of breast cancer. Monthly screening mammography volume in July 2020 for Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian women reached 96.7% (95% CI = 88.1% to 106.1%), 92.9% (95% CI = 82.9% to 104.0%), 72.7% (95% CI = 56.5% to 93.6%), and 51.3% (95% CI = 39.7% to 66.2%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volume, respectively.ConclusionsDespite a strong overall rebound in mammography volume by July 2020, the rebound lagged among Asian and Hispanic women, and a substantial cumulative deficit in missed mammograms accumulated, which may have important health consequences.

BackgroundA paucity of research addresses breast cancer screening strategies for women at lower-than-average breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine screening harms and benefits among women aged 50-74 years at lower-than-average breast cancer risk by breast density.MethodsThree well-established, validated Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network models were used to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of different screening scenarios, varying by screening interval (biennial, triennial). Breast cancer deaths averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained, false-positives, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis were assessed by relative risk (RR) level (0.6, 0.7, 0.85, 1 [average risk]) and breast density category, for US women born in 1970.ResultsScreening benefits decreased proportionally with decreasing risk and with lower breast density. False-positives, unnecessary biopsies, and the percentage overdiagnosis also varied substantially by breast density category; false-positives and unnecessary biopsies were highest in the heterogeneously dense category. For women with fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density and a relative risk of no more than 0.85, the additional deaths averted and life-years gained were small with biennial vs triennial screening. For these groups, undergoing 4 additional screens (screening biennially [13 screens] vs triennially [9 screens]) averted no more than 1 additional breast cancer death and gained no more than 16 life-years and no more than 10 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 women but resulted in up to 232 more false-positives per 1000 women.ConclusionTriennial screening from age 50 to 74 years may be a reasonable screening strategy for women with lower-than-average breast cancer risk and fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density.

Abstract Background Diabetes mellitus has been associated with increased breast cancer (BC) risk; however, the magnitude of this effect is uncertain. This study focused on BC risk for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods Two separate meta‐analyses were conducted (1) to estimate the relative risk (RR) of BC for women with T2DM and (2) to evaluate the risk of BC for women with T2DM associated with the use of metformin, a common diabetes treatment. In addition, subgroup analyses adjusting for obesity as measured by body mass index (BMI) and menopausal status were also performed. Studies were identified via PubMed/Scopus database and manual search through April 2021. Results A total of 30 and 15 studies were included in the first and second meta‐analyses, respectively. The summary RR of BC for women with T2DM was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.21). The subgroup analyses adjusting BMI and adjusting BMI and menopause resulted in a summary RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.15–1.30) and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.05–1.36), respectively. For women with T2DM, the summary RR of BC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60–1.12) for metformin users compared with nonmetformin users. Conclusions Women with T2DM were more likely to be diagnosed with BC and this association was strengthened by adjusting for BMI and menopausal status. No statistically significant reduction of BC risk was observed among metformin users. Impact These two meta‐analyses can inform decision‐making for women with type 2 diabetes regarding their use of metformin and the use of screening mammography for early detection of breast cancer.

Introduction: High mammographic density is among the strongest and most established predictors for breast cancer risk. Puberty, the period during which breasts undergo exponential mammary growth, is considered one of the critical stages of breast development for environmental exposures. Benzylbutyl phthalate (BBP) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are pervasive endocrine disrupting chemicals that may increase hormone-sensitive cancers. Evaluating the potential impact of BBP and PFOA exposure on pubertal breast density is important to our understanding of early-life environmental influences on breast cancer etiology. Objective: To prospectively assess the effect of biomarker concentrations of monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP) and PFOA at specific pubertal window of susceptibility (WOS) on adolescent breast density. Method: This study included 376 Chilean girls from the Growth and Obesity Cohort Study with data collection at four timepoints: Tanner breast stages 1 (B1) and 4 (B4), 1- year post- menarche (1YPM) and 2-years post-menarche (2YPM). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to assess the absolute fibroglandular volume (FGV) and percent breast density (%FGV) at 2YPM. We used concentrations of PFOA in serum and MBzP in urine as an index of exposure to PFOA and BBP, respectively. Parametric G-formula was used to estimate the time-specific effects of MBzP and PFOA on breast density. The models included body fat percentage as a time-varying confounder and age, birthweight, age at menarche, and maternal education as fixed covariates. Results: A doubling of serum PFOA concentration at B4 resulted in a non-significant increase in absolute FGV (β:11.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.28, 23.49)), while a doubling of PFOA concentration at 1YPM resulted in a decrease in % FGV (β:-4.61, 95% CI: −7.45, −1.78). We observed no associations between urine MBzP and breast density measures. Conclusion: In this cohort of Latina girls, PFOA serum concentrations corresponded to a decrease in % FGV. No effect was observed between MBzP and breast density measures across pubertal WOS.

BackgroundPopulation-based estimates of the risk of breast cancer associated with germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposition genes are critically needed for risk assessment and management in women with inherited pathogenic variants.MethodsIn a population-based case-control study, we performed sequencing using a custom multigene amplicon-based panel to identify germline pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes among 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (controls) from population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. Associations between pathogenic variants in each gene and the risk of breast cancer were assessed.ResultsPathogenic variants in 12 established breast cancer-predisposition genes were detected in 5.03% of case patients and in 1.63% of controls. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with a high risk of breast cancer, with odds ratios of 7.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.33 to 11.27) and 5.23 (95% CI, 4.09 to 6.77), respectively. Pathogenic variants in PALB2 were associated with a moderate risk (odds ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 2.68 to 5.63). Pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D were associated with increased risks of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, whereas pathogenic variants in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 were associated with an increased risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Pathogenic variants in 16 candidate breast cancer-predisposition genes, including the c.657_661del5 founder pathogenic variant in NBN, were not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.ConclusionsThis study provides estimates of the prevalence and risk of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-predisposition genes in the U.S. population. These estimates can inform cancer testing and screening and improve clinical management strategies for women in the general population with inherited pathogenic variants in these genes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.).

BACKGROUND: The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. METHODS: Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. RESULTS: Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

BackgroundOverweight/obesity and dense breasts are strong breast cancer risk factors whose prevalences vary by race/ethnicity. The breast cancer population attributable risk proportions (PARP) explained by these factors across racial/ethnic groups are unknown.MethodsWe analyzed data collected from 3,786,802 mammography examinations (1,071,653 women) in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, associated with 21,253 invasive breast cancers during a median of 5.2 years follow-up. HRs for body mass index (BMI) and breast density, adjusted for age and registry were estimated using separate Cox regression models by race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian) and menopausal status. HRs were combined with observed risk-factor proportions to calculate PARPs for shifting overweight/obese to normal BMI and shifting heterogeneously/extremely dense to scattered fibroglandular densities.ResultsThe prevalences and HRs for overweight/obesity and heterogeneously/extremely dense breasts varied across races/ethnicities and menopausal status. BMI PARPs were larger for postmenopausal versus premenopausal women (12.0%-28.3% vs. 1.0%-9.9%) and nearly double among postmenopausal Black women (28.3%) than other races/ethnicities (12.0%-15.4%). Breast density PARPs were larger for premenopausal versus postmenopausal women (23.9%-35.0% vs. 13.0%-16.7%) and lower among premenopausal Black women (23.9%) than other races/ethnicities (30.4%-35.0%). Postmenopausal density PARPs were similar across races/ethnicities (13.0%-16.7%).ConclusionsOverweight/obesity and dense breasts account for large proportions of breast cancers in White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian women despite large differences in risk-factor distributions.ImpactRisk prediction models should consider how race/ethnicity interacts with BMI and breast density. Efforts to reduce BMI could have a large impact on breast cancer risk reduction, particularly among postmenopausal Black women.

BackgroundSurveillance with annual mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for female survivors of childhood cancer treated with chest radiation, yet benefits, harms, and costs are uncertain.ObjectiveTo compare the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies in childhood cancer survivors.DesignCollaborative simulation modeling using 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models.Data sourcesChildhood Cancer Survivor Study and published data.Target populationWomen aged 20 years with a history of chest radiotherapy.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectivePayer.InterventionAnnual MRI with or without mammography, starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer deaths averted, false-positive screening results, benign biopsy results, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results of base-case analysisLifetime breast cancer mortality risk without screening was 10% to 11% across models. Compared with no screening, starting at age 25 years, annual mammography with MRI averted the most deaths (56% to 71%) and annual MRI (without mammography) averted 56% to 62%. Both strategies had the most screening tests, false-positive screening results, and benign biopsy results. For an ICER threshold of less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, screening beginning at age 30 years was preferred.Results of sensitivity analysisAssuming lower screening performance, the benefit of adding mammography to MRI increased in both models, although the conclusions about preferred starting age remained unchanged.LimitationElevated breast cancer risk was based on survivors diagnosed with childhood cancer between 1970 and 1986.ConclusionEarly initiation (at ages 25 to 30 years) of annual breast cancer screening with MRI, with or without mammography, might reduce breast cancer mortality by half or more in survivors of childhood cancer.Primary funding sourceAmerican Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasingly being used for routine breast cancer screening. We projected the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of DBT compared to conventional digital mammography (DM) for breast cancer screening in the United States.MethodsThree Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models simulated US women ages 40 years and older undergoing breast cancer screening with either DBT or DM starting in 2011 and continuing for the lifetime of the cohort. Screening performance estimates were based on observational data; in an alternative scenario, we assumed 4% higher sensitivity for DBT. Analyses used federal payer perspective; costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Outcomes included breast cancer deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive examinations, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsCompared to DM, DBT screening resulted in a slight reduction in breast cancer deaths (range across models 0-0.21 per 1000 women), small increase in QALYs (1.97-3.27 per 1000 women), and a 24-28% reduction in false-positive exams (237-268 per 1000 women) relative to DM. ICERs ranged from $195 026 to $270 135 per QALY for DBT relative to DM. When assuming 4% higher DBT sensitivity, ICERs decreased to $130 533-$156 624 per QALY. ICERs were sensitive to DBT costs, decreasing to $78 731 to $168 883 and $52 918 to $118 048 when the additional cost of DBT was reduced to $36 and $26 (from baseline of $56), respectively.ConclusionDBT reduces false-positive exams while achieving similar or slightly improved health benefits. At current reimbursement rates, the additional costs of DBT screening are likely high relative to the benefits gained; however, DBT could be cost-effective at lower screening costs.

BackgroundThe long time from exposure to potentially harmful chemicals until breast cancer occurrence poses challenges for designing etiologic studies and for implementing successful prevention programs. Growing evidence from animal and human studies indicates that distinct time periods of heightened susceptibility to endocrine disruptors exist throughout the life course. The influence of environmental chemicals on breast cancer risk may be greater during several windows of susceptibility (WOS) in a woman's life, including prenatal development, puberty, pregnancy, and the menopausal transition. These time windows are considered as specific periods of susceptibility for breast cancer because significant structural and functional changes occur in the mammary gland, as well as alterations in the mammary micro-environment and hormone signaling that may influence risk. Breast cancer research focused on these breast cancer WOS will accelerate understanding of disease etiology and prevention.Main textDespite the plausible heightened mechanistic influences of environmental chemicals on breast cancer risk during time periods of change in the mammary gland's structure and function, most human studies of environmental chemicals are not focused on specific WOS. This article reviews studies conducted over the past few decades that have specifically addressed the effect of environmental chemicals and metals on breast cancer risk during at least one of these WOS. In addition to summarizing the broader evidence-base specific to WOS, we include discussion of the NIH-funded Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) which included population-based and basic science research focused on specific WOS to evaluate associations between breast cancer risk and particular classes of endocrine-disrupting chemicals-including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, perfluorinated compounds, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and phenols-and metals. We outline ways in which ongoing transdisciplinary BCERP projects incorporate animal research and human epidemiologic studies in close partnership with community organizations and communication scientists to identify research priorities and effectively translate evidence-based findings to the public and policy makers.ConclusionsAn integrative model of breast cancer research is needed to determine the impact and mechanisms of action of endocrine disruptors at different WOS. By focusing on environmental chemical exposure during specific WOS, scientists and their community partners may identify when prevention efforts are likely to be most effective.

PurposeHigher mortality after a breast cancer diagnosis has been observed among women who are obese. We investigated the relationships between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause or breast cancer-specific mortality after a diagnosis of locoregional breast cancer.MethodsWomen diagnosed in 2004 with AJCC Stage I, II, or III breast cancer (n = 5394) were identified from a population-based National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) patterns of care study (POC-BP) drawing from registries in seven U.S. states. Differences in overall and breast cancer-specific mortality were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates, including age- and stage-based subgroup analyses.ResultsIn women 70 or older, higher BMI was associated with lower overall mortality (HR for a 5 kg/m2 difference in BMI = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95). There was no significant association between BMI and overall mortality for women under 70. BMI was not associated with breast cancer death in the full sample, but among women with Stage I disease; those in the highest BMI category had significantly higher breast cancer mortality (HR for BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 vs. 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 = 4.74, 95% CI 1.78-12.59).ConclusionsContrary to our hypothesis, greater BMI was not associated with higher overall mortality. Among older women, BMI was inversely related to overall mortality, with a null association among younger women. Higher BMI was associated with breast cancer mortality among women with Stage I disease, but not among women with more advanced disease.

BackgroundSince their inception in 2000, the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) breast cancer models have collaborated to use a nationally representative core of common input parameters to represent key components of breast cancer control in each model. Employment of common inputs permits greater ability to compare model output than when each model begins with different input parameters. The use of common inputs also enhances inferences about the results, and provides a range of reasonable results based on variations in model structure, assumptions, and methods of use of the input values. The common input data are updated for each analysis to ensure that they reflect the most current practice and knowledge about breast cancer. The common core of parameters includes population rates of births and deaths; age- and cohort-specific temporal rates of breast cancer incidence in the absence of screening and treatment; effects of risk factors on incidence trends; dissemination of plain film and digital mammography; screening test performance characteristics; stage or size distribution of screen-, interval-, and clinically- detected tumors by age; the joint distribution of ER/HER2 by age and stage; survival in the absence of screening and treatment by stage and molecular subtype; age-, stage-, and molecular subtype-specific therapy; dissemination and effectiveness of therapies over time; and competing non-breast cancer mortality.Method and resultsIn this paper, we summarize the methods and results for the common input values presently used in the CISNET breast cancer models, note assumptions made because of unobservable phenomena and/or unavailable data, and highlight plans for the development of future parameters.ConclusionThese data are intended to enhance the transparency of the breast CISNET models.

Background: Increase in breast cancer incidence associated with mammography screening diffusion may have attenuated risk associations between family history and breast cancer.Methods: The proportions of women ages 40 to 74 years reporting a first-degree family history of breast cancer were estimated in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort (BCSC: N = 1,170,900; 1996-2012) and the Collaborative Breast Cancer Study (CBCS: cases N = 23,400; controls N = 26,460; 1987-2007). Breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive) relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with family history were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression models.Results: The proportion of women reporting a first-degree family history increased from 11% in the 1980s to 16% in 2010 to 2013. Family history was associated with a >60% increased risk of breast cancer in the BCSC (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.55-1.66) and CBCS (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.57-1.72). Relative risks decreased slightly with age. Consistent trends in relative risks were not observed over time or across stage of disease at diagnosis in both studies, except among older women (ages 60-74) where estimates were attenuated from about 1.7 to 1.3 over the last 20 years (P trend = 0.08 for both studies).Conclusions: Although the proportion of women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer increased over time and by age, breast cancer risk associations with family history were nonetheless fairly constant over time for women under age 60.Impact: First-degree family history of breast cancer remains an important breast cancer risk factor, especially for younger women, despite its increasing prevalence in the mammography screening era. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1753-60. ©2017 AACR.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare yet aggressive form of breast cancer. We examined differences in patient demographics and outcomes in IBC compared to locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and all other breast cancer patients from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study (POC-BP), containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Out of 7,624 cases of invasive carcinoma, IBC and LABC accounted for 2.2% (N = 170) and 4.9% (N = 375), respectively. IBC patients were more likely to have a higher number (P = 0.03) and severity (P = 0.01) of comorbidities than other breast cancer patients. Among IBC patients, a higher percentage of patients with metastatic disease versus nonmetastatic disease were black, on Medicaid, and from areas of higher poverty and more urban areas. Black and Hispanic IBC patients had worse overall and breast cancer-specific survival than white patients; moreover, IBC patients with Medicaid, patients from urban areas, and patients from areas of higher poverty and lower education had worse outcomes. These data highlight the effects of disparities in race and socioeconomic status on the incidence of IBC as well as IBC outcomes. Further work is needed to reveal the causes behind these disparities and methods to improve IBC outcomes.

Key Points: Question: What are the benefits and harms of different screening mammography strategies? Findings: Six validated CISNET models found that, compared with no screening, biennial mammography screening with digital breast tomosynthesis from age 40 to 74 yielded a median of 8.2 breast cancer deaths averted per 1000 women screened, equal to a 30% reduction in breast cancer mortality, and 165 life-years gained, 1376 false-positive recalls, 201 benign biopsies, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. For each strategy, benefits were larger for Black women than for all women. Meaning: Biennial mammography from ages 40 to 74 years has favorable benefit-to-harm tradeoffs. Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities. This modeling study uses Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses to estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeCHEK2*1100delC is a well-established breast cancer risk variant that is most prevalent in European populations; however, there are limited data on risk of breast cancer by age and tumor subtype, which limits its usefulness in breast cancer risk prediction. We aimed to generate tumor subtype- and age-specific risk estimates by using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, including 44,777 patients with breast cancer and 42,997 controls from 33 studies genotyped for CHEK2*1100delC.Patients and methodsCHEK2*1100delC genotyping was mostly done by a custom Taqman assay. Breast cancer odds ratios (ORs) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers versus noncarriers were estimated by using logistic regression and adjusted for study (categorical) and age. Main analyses included patients with invasive breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies.ResultsProportions of heterozygous CHEK2*1100delC carriers in controls, in patients with breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies, and in patients with breast cancer from familial- and clinical genetics center-based studies were 0.5%, 1.3%, and 3.0%, respectively. The estimated OR for invasive breast cancer was 2.26 (95%CI, 1.90 to 2.69; P = 2.3 × 10(-20)). The OR was higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease (2.55 [95%CI, 2.10 to 3.10; P = 4.9 × 10(-21)]) than it was for ER-negative disease (1.32 [95%CI, 0.93 to 1.88; P = .12]; P interaction = 9.9 × 10(-4)). The OR significantly declined with attained age for breast cancer overall (P = .001) and for ER-positive tumors (P = .001). Estimated cumulative risks for development of ER-positive and ER-negative tumors by age 80 in CHEK2*1100delC carriers were 20% and 3%, respectively, compared with 9% and 2%, respectively, in the general population of the United Kingdom.ConclusionThese CHEK2*1100delC breast cancer risk estimates provide a basis for incorporating CHEK2*1100delC into breast cancer risk prediction models and into guidelines for intensified screening and follow-up.

BackgroundControversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.ObjectiveTo evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.DesignCollaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.SettingUnited States.PatientsAverage-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.InterventionEight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.MeasurementsBenefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.ResultsBiennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.LimitationOther imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.ConclusionBiennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

PurposeInflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer for which treatments vary, so we sought to identify factors that affect the receipt of guideline-concordant care.MethodsPatients diagnosed with IBC in 2004 were identified from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study, containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Variation in guideline-concordant care for IBC, based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, was assessed according to patient, physician, and hospital characteristics.ResultsOf the 107 IBC patients in the study without distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, only 25.8% received treatment concordant with guidelines. Predictors of non-concordance included patient age (≥70 years), non-white race, normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m(2)), patients with physicians graduating from medical school >15 years prior, and smaller hospital size (

Concerns about breast cancer overdiagnosis have increased the need to understand how cancers detected through screening mammography differ from those first detected by a woman or her clinician. We investigated risk factor associations for invasive breast cancer by method of detection within a series of case-control studies (1992-2007) carried out in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire (n=15,648 invasive breast cancer patients and 17,602 controls aged 40-79 years). Approximately half of case women reported that their cancer had been detected by mammographic screening and half that they or their clinician had detected it. In polytomous logistic regression models, parity and age at first birth were more strongly associated with risk of mammography-detected breast cancer than with risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (P≤0.01; adjusted for mammography utilization). Among postmenopausal women, estrogen-progestin hormone use was predominantly associated with risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (odds ratio (OR)=1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29, 1.72), whereas obesity was predominantly associated with risk of mammography-detected breast cancer (OR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.54, 1.92). Among regularly screened premenopausal women, obesity was not associated with increased risk of mammography-detected breast cancer (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.18), but it was associated with reduced risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.64). These findings indicate important differences in breast cancer risk factors according to method of detection.

BACKGROUND: Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. METHODS: We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. RESULTS: There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.

BackgroundNational legislation is under consideration that would require women with mammographically dense breasts to be informed of their breast density and encouraged to discuss supplemental breast cancer screening with their health care providers. The number of US women potentially affected by this legislation is unknown.MethodsWe determined the mammographic breast density distribution by age and body mass index (BMI) using data from 1518 599 mammograms conducted from 2007 through 2010 at mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). We applied these breast density distributions to age- and BMI-specific counts of the US female population derived from the 2010 US Census and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate the number of US women with dense breasts.ResultsOverall, 43.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.1% to 43.4%) of women 40 to 74 years of age had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, and this proportion was inversely associated with age and BMI. Based on the age and BMI distribution of US women, we estimated that 27.6 million women (95% CI = 27.5 to 27.7 million) aged 40 to 74 years in the United States have heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Women aged 40 to 49 years (N = 12.3 million) accounted for 44.3% of this group.ConclusionThe prevalence of dense breasts among US women of common breast cancer screening ages exceeds 25 million. Policymakers and healthcare providers should consider this large prevalence when debating breast density notification legislation and designing strategies to ensure that women who are notified have opportunities to evaluate breast cancer risk and discuss and pursue supplemental screening options if deemed appropriate.

BackgroundCompared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear.MethodsUsing five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs.ResultsFor every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective.ConclusionsThe transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.

While several risk factors for breast cancer have been identified, studies have not consistently shown whether these factors operate more strongly at certain ages or for just pre- or postmenopausal women. We evaluated whether risk factors for breast cancer differ according to age or menopausal status. Data from five population-based case-control studies conducted during 1988-2008 were combined and analyzed. Cases (N = 23,959) and population controls (N = 28,304) completed telephone interviews. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals and tests for interaction by age and menopausal status. Odds ratios for first-degree family history of breast cancer were strongest for younger women-reaching twofold elevations-but were still statistically significantly elevated by 58-69 % among older women. Obesity was inversely associated with breast cancer among younger women and positively associated with risk for older women (interaction P < 0.0001). Recent alcohol intake was more strongly related to breast cancer risk among older women, although consumption of 3 or more drinks/day among younger women also was associated with elevated odd ratios (P < 0.0001). Associations with benign breast disease and most reproductive/menstrual factors did not vary by age. Repeating analysis stratifying by menopausal status produced similar results. With few exceptions, menstrual and lifestyle factors are associated with breast cancer risk regardless of age or menopausal status. Variation in the association of family history, obesity, and alcohol use with breast cancer risk by age and menopausal status may need to be considered when determining individual risk for breast cancer.