Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026
Association between allostatic load and risk of breast carcinoma in situ in the UK biobank.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fengfu Chengsheng, Hua Xin, Chen Xiujuan, Liu Mengsi, Chen Aoqiang, Wan Binlong, Sun Hengwen, Liang Huiying, Du Shasha, Xie De-Huan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The association between allostatic load (AL) and breast carcinoma in situ (BCIS) remains unclear. We investigated this relationship in the UK Biobank while also assessing its role in invasive breast cancer (IDC) for comparison.
METHODS: Using data from the UK Biobank, we included 159,240 women (40-69 years). AL was derived from 12 biomarkers. Cox proportional hazards models, restricted cubic splines (RCS), and time-dependent ROC curves were used to assess associations with BCIS and IDC.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 13.65 years, 1,320 BCIS and 7,197 IDC cases occurred. In fully adjusted models, AL was not associated with BCIS (HR per 1-point increase = 1.004; 95% CI: 0.966-1.042; p = 0.854). RCS confirmed no non-linear relationship (p = 0.605). Conversely, AL was significantly associated with IDC (HR = 1.018; 95% CI: 1.002-1.035; p = 0.026), indicating a 1.8% increased risk per unit increase. Predictive utility was minimal (AUC < 0.58), and sensitivity analyses using quintile-based AL scoring validated these findings.
CONCLUSION: While AL is an independent risk factor for IDC, it shows no association with BCIS. These findings suggest that the biological drivers of in-situ lesions differ from those of invasive progression, highlighting AL as an etiologic factor for malignancy rather than a screening tool for early-stage localization.
METHODS: Using data from the UK Biobank, we included 159,240 women (40-69 years). AL was derived from 12 biomarkers. Cox proportional hazards models, restricted cubic splines (RCS), and time-dependent ROC curves were used to assess associations with BCIS and IDC.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 13.65 years, 1,320 BCIS and 7,197 IDC cases occurred. In fully adjusted models, AL was not associated with BCIS (HR per 1-point increase = 1.004; 95% CI: 0.966-1.042; p = 0.854). RCS confirmed no non-linear relationship (p = 0.605). Conversely, AL was significantly associated with IDC (HR = 1.018; 95% CI: 1.002-1.035; p = 0.026), indicating a 1.8% increased risk per unit increase. Predictive utility was minimal (AUC < 0.58), and sensitivity analyses using quintile-based AL scoring validated these findings.
CONCLUSION: While AL is an independent risk factor for IDC, it shows no association with BCIS. These findings suggest that the biological drivers of in-situ lesions differ from those of invasive progression, highlighting AL as an etiologic factor for malignancy rather than a screening tool for early-stage localization.