A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is associated with both risk of cancers being missed at mammography, and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Stratification of breast cancer prevention and screening requires mammographic density measures predictive of cancer. This study compares five mammographic density measures to determine the association with subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer and the presence of breast cancer at screening. METHODS: Women participating in the "Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening" (PROCAS) study, a study of cancer risk, completed questionnaires to provide personal information to enable computation of the Tyrer-Cuzick risk score. Mammographic density was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), thresholding (Cumulus) and fully-automated methods (Densitas, Quantra, Volpara) in contralateral breasts of 366 women with unilateral breast cancer (cases) detected at screening on entry to the study (Cumulus 311/366) and in 338 women with cancer detected subsequently. Three controls per case were matched using age, body mass index category, hormone replacement therapy use and menopausal status. Odds ratios (OR) between the highest and lowest quintile, based on the density distribution in controls, for each density measure were estimated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for classic risk factors. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of screen-detected cancer at study entry was VAS, OR 4.37 (95% CI 2.72-7.03) in the highest vs lowest quintile of percent density after adjustment for classical risk factors. Volpara, Densitas and Cumulus gave ORs for the highest vs lowest quintile of 2.42 (95% CI 1.56-3.78), 2.17 (95% CI 1.41-3.33) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.30-3.45), respectively. Quantra was not significantly associated with breast cancer (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67-1.54). Similar results were found for subsequent cancers, with ORs of 4.48 (95% CI 2.79-7.18), 2.87 (95% CI 1.77-4.64) and 2.34 (95% CI 1.50-3.68) in highest vs lowest quintiles of VAS, Volpara and Densitas, respectively. Quantra gave an OR in the highest vs lowest quintile of 1.32 (95% CI 0.85-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: Visual density assessment demonstrated a strong relationship with cancer, despite known inter-observer variability; however, it is impractical for population-based screening. Percentage density measured by Volpara and Densitas also had a strong association with breast cancer risk, amongst the automated measures evaluated, providing practical automated methods for risk stratification.

Pathology update to the Manchester Scoring System based on testing in over 4000 families.

BACKGROUND: While the requirement for thresholds for testing for mutations in BRCA1/2 is being questioned, they are likely to remain for individuals unaffected by a relevant cancer. It is still useful to provide pretesting likelihoods, but models need to take into account tumour pathology. METHODS: The Manchester Scoring System (MSS) is a well-used, simple, paper-based model for assessing carrier probability that already incorporates pathology data. We have used mutation testing data from 4115 unrelated samples from affected non-Jewish individuals alongside tumour pathology to further refine the scoring system. RESULTS: Adding additional points for high-grade serous ovarian cancer <60 (HGSOC=+2) and adding grade score to those with triple-negative breast cancer, while reducing the score for those with HER2+ breast cancer (-6), resulted in significantly improved sensitivity and minor improvements in specificity to the MSS. Sporadic HGSOC <60 years thus reached a score of 15-19 points within the 10% grouping consistent with the 15/113-13.2% that were identified with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Validation in a population series of ovarian cancer from Cambridge showed high sensitivity at the 10% threshold 15/17 (88.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The new pathology-adjusted Manchester score MSS3 appears to provide an effective and simple-to-use estimate of the 10% and 20% thresholds for BRCA1/2 likelihood. For unaffected individuals, the 20-point (20%) threshold in their affected first-degree relative can be used to determine eligibility at the 10% threshold.

Could Intermittent Energy Restriction and Intermittent Fasting Reduce Rates of Cancer in Obese, Overweight, and Normal-Weight Subjects? A Summary of Evidence.

Animal studies and human observational data link energy restriction (ER) to reduced rates of carcinogenesis. Most of these studies have involved continuous energy restriction (CER), but there is increasing public and scientific interest in the potential health and anticancer effects of intermittent energy restriction (IER) or intermittent fasting (IF), which comprise periods of marked ER or total fasting interspersed with periods of normal eating. This review summarizes animal studies that assessed tumor rates with IER and IF compared with CER or ad libitum feed consumption. The relevance of these animal data to human cancer is also considered by summarizing available human studies of the effects of IER or IF compared with CER on cancer biomarkers in obese, overweight, and normal-weight subjects. IER regimens that include periods of ER alternating with ad libitum feed consumption for 1, 2, or 3 wk have been reported to be superior to CER in reducing tumor rates in most spontaneous mice tumor models. Limited human data from short-term studies (≤6 mo) in overweight and obese subjects have shown that IER can lead to greater improvements in insulin sensitivity (homeostasis model assessment) than can CER, with comparable reductions in adipokines and inflammatory markers and minor changes in the insulin-like growth factor axis. There are currently no data comparing IER or IF with CER in normal-weight subjects. The benefits of IER in these short-term trials are of interest, but not sufficient evidence to recommend the use of IER above CER. Longer-term human studies of adherence to and efficacy and safety of IER are required in obese and overweight subjects, as well as normal-weight subjects.

Immunohistochemical BAG1 expression improves the estimation of residual risk by IHC4 in postmenopausal patients treated with anastrazole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study.

BAG1 is a multifunctional anti-apoptotic protein located on chromosome 9q12, which binds to Bcl-2. BAG1 is present as a separate module in the GHI-RS 21-gene panel. It may provide additional prognostic information as an immunohistochemical marker when added to IHC4. Analysis of BAG1 was performed on archival tumour blocks from patients from the anastrozole and tamoxifen arms of the ATAC trial of 5 years endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive primary breast cancer. Staining was scored separately as nuclear or cytoplasmic. Statistical analyses were performed on data from median 10-year follow-up with distant recurrence as primary endpoint. Data on both nuclear and cytoplasmic BAG1 as well as the IHC4 markers (ER, PgR, HER2 and Ki67) were available on 963 ER-positive cases of which 860 were HER2-negative. Cytoplasmic and nuclear BAG1 were highly correlated (Spearman r = 0.79, p < 00001). Women with higher BAG1 expression developed 30 % fewer distant recurrences compared to those with low expression. Nuclear BAG1 contributed significantly to the clinical and IHC4 models with added information being greater in node-positive cases. Similar results were seen if all recurrences were the endpoints. BAG1 expression provides significant prognostic information when added to the classical clinicopathological parameters and IHC4, particularly in node-positive patients.

Retrospective analysis of time to recurrence in the ATAC trial according to hormone receptor status: an hypothesis-generating study.

PURPOSE: Arimidex, tamoxifen alone, or in combination (ATAC) trial of anastrozole (Arimidex) versus tamoxifen or a combination of the two in 9,366 postmenopausal patients with primary breast cancer found a significant improvement in disease-free survival and time to recurrence (TTR) for anastrozole compared with tamoxifen, that was restricted to patients with hormone receptor-positive (ie, estrogen receptor-positive [ER+] and/or progesterone receptor-positive [PgR+]) disease, the target population for these therapies. We retrospectively tested the hypothesis that this benefit might differ according to PgR status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TTR was compared between the three treatment groups for subgroups defined by ER and PgR status using Cox's proportional hazards model, with and without adjustment for baseline variables. RESULTS: The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for anastrozole versus tamoxifen for TTR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87) for women with either ER+ or PgR+ tumors. In the ER+/PgR+ subgroup (n = 3,834) the HR was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02) compared with 0.43 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.61) in the ER+/PgR-negative (PgR-) subgroup (n = 880). In the adjusted model the HRs were 0.83 and 0.45, respectively. CONCLUSION: Time to recurrence was longer for anastrozole- than tamoxifen-treated patients in both ER+/PgR+ and ER+/PgR- subgroups, but the benefit was substantially greater in the PgR- subgroup. As this was an "exploratory" analysis, this effect should be considered as hypothesis generating and assessed prospectively in other trials comparing the adjuvant use of an aromatase inhibitor with tamoxifen.

Need for weight management among postmenopausal early breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Increasingly effective adjuvant therapies mean that the prognosis for postmenopausal women with breast cancer has never been better. Weight problems are common among breast cancer patients and worsen due to the impact of diagnosis and treatment. Recent studies have linked excess weight with the risk of recurrence of breast cancer among premenopausal women. While general obesity (body mass index) does not appear to influence the already much improved prognosis for postmenopausal women, there is some evidence that limiting central obesity and improving insulin resistance may improve survival. The focus of attention for postmenopausal breast cancer survivors is also shifting to consider the mortality and morbidity from other weight-related cancers and noncancer causes, such as cardiovascular disease, making weight control a potentially important adjunct to endocrine therapy. This paper outlines the rationale and optimal design for effective weight management strategies among postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy.

The effects of hormone therapy on cognition in breast cancer.

The use of hormonal therapies for the treatment of breast cancer is common, yet few studies have examined the possible cognitive effects. Several regions of the brain, important in memory and cognition, are rich in oestrogen receptors. As a result, the long-term use of anti-oestrogens may have potential consequences for cognition. This project aims to establish whether significant cognitive deficit exists in women receiving hormone therapy for breast cancer and to develop a cognitive package that is sensitive to the potential effects of oestrogen deficiency on cognition. Cognitive assessments measured a range of memory and attention functions in patient and control groups to identify whether cognitive impairment, if apparent, occurs at a widespread or function specific level. Ninety-four patients from the anastrozole, tamoxifen and combined (ATAC) trial and 35 non-cancer controls were assessed. Groups did not differ significantly in age or estimated full-scale intelligence. The patient group did not differ from controls on measures of working memory, attention and visual memory but was significantly impaired compared to the control group on measures of verbal memory (P=0.026) and processing speed (P=0.032). Cognitive performance in the patient group was not significantly related to length of time on trial or measures of psychological morbidity. As more and more hormonal agents are used in clinical trials of both adjuvant and preventive settings it is of vital importance that any potentially deleterious effects on cognitive function are measured adequately. Preliminary results from this study suggest that anti-oestrogen therapy may cause a specific deficit in verbal memory that corroborates the links between oestrogen levels and verbal memory often reported in studies of the cognitive benefits of hormone replacement therapy.