Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer

Abstract

Background At least four major categories of invasive breast cancer have been reproducibly identified by gene expression profiling: luminal A, luminal B, HER2-type and basal-like. These subtypes have been shown to differ in their outcome and response to treatment. Whether this heterogeneity reflects the evolution of these subtypes through distinct etiologic pathways has not been clearly defined. Methods We evaluated the association between traditional breast cancer risk factors and risk of previously defined molecular subtypes of breast cancer in the Nurses’ Health Study. This analysis included 2,022 invasive breast cancer cases for whom we were able to obtain archived breast cancer tissue specimens. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed and slides were immunostained for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Using immunostain results in combination with histologic grade, cases were grouped into molecularly defined subtypes. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We observed differences in the association between risk factors and subtypes of breast cancer. In general, many reproductive factors were most strongly associated with the luminal A subtype, although these differences were not statistically significant. Weight gain since age 18 showed significant differences in its association with molecular subtypes (p-heterogeneity=0.05) and was most strongly associated with the luminal B subtype (p-trend 0.001). Although there was not significant heterogeneity for lactation across subtypes, an inverse association was strongest for basal-like tumors (HR=0.6, 95%CI 0.4–0.8; p-heterogeneity=0.88). Conclusions These results support the hypothesis that different subtypes of breast cancer have different etiologies and should not be considered as a single group. Identifying risk factors for less common subtypes such as luminal B, HER2-type and basal-like tumors has important implications for prevention of these more aggressive subtypes.

Histopathological spectrum of neoplastic lesions of female reproductive system-a two-year experience in Eastern Nepal

“…These subtypes differ in terms of clinical presentation, risk factors, response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and patient's survival rate. [15][16][17] So microscopic subtyping and four main molecular subtyping are now a day is generally done in all newly diagnosed breast cancer. In our study after the diagnosis of breast cancer we referred the patients to higher centre for molecular subtyping and further treatment.…”

Subtype classification for prediction of prognosis of breast cancer from a biomarker panel: correlations and indications

“…3,8 This requires establishing a new approach with a more rational, comprehensive breast cancer classification system based on the three key molecules to understand further the heterogeneity of the disease in individual patients. 1 Two aspects should be considered in this new prediction system.…”

Nurses’ Health Study: demonstrating the impact of research, and adapting new measures and approaches to increase relevance and effect of cohort studies

“…15,16 This latter evaluation showed that a history of breastfeeding was inversely related to basal-like breast cancer. 16 The cohort has also been a rich source of evidence on adiposity in childhood and its relationship to subsequent risk of breast cancer, where it is inversely related to oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. 17 Studies of survivorship after cancer diagnosis and treatment were also an early addition to the ongoing cohort study.…”