Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023
Prediction of breast cancer risk for sisters of women attending screening.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mao Xinhe, He Wei, Eriksson Mikael, Lindström Linda S, Holowko Natalie, Bajalica-Lagercrantz Svetlana, Hammarström Mattias, Grassmann Felix, Humphreys Keith, Easton Douglas, Hall Per, Czene Kamila
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is important for breast cancer prevention and early detection. We aimed to examine whether common risk factors, mammographic features, and breast cancer risk prediction scores of a woman were associated with breast cancer risk for her sisters.
METHODS: We included 53 051 women from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) study. Established risk factors were derived using self-reported questionnaires, mammograms, and single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping. Using the Swedish Multi-Generation Register, we identified 32 198 sisters of the KARMA women (including 5352 KARMA participants and 26 846 nonparticipants). Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of breast cancer for both women and their sisters, respectively.
RESULTS: A higher breast cancer polygenic risk score, a history of benign breast disease, and higher breast density in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for both women and their sisters. No statistically significant association was observed between breast microcalcifications and masses in women and breast cancer risk for their sisters. Furthermore, higher breast cancer risk scores in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for their sisters. Specifically, the hazard ratios for breast cancer per 1 standard deviation increase in age-adjusted KARMA, Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), and Tyrer-Cuzick risk scores were 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 1.27), 1.23 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.35), and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.32), respectively.
CONCLUSION: A woman's breast cancer risk factors are associated with her sister's breast cancer risk. However, the clinical utility of these findings requires further investigation.
METHODS: We included 53 051 women from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) study. Established risk factors were derived using self-reported questionnaires, mammograms, and single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping. Using the Swedish Multi-Generation Register, we identified 32 198 sisters of the KARMA women (including 5352 KARMA participants and 26 846 nonparticipants). Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of breast cancer for both women and their sisters, respectively.
RESULTS: A higher breast cancer polygenic risk score, a history of benign breast disease, and higher breast density in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for both women and their sisters. No statistically significant association was observed between breast microcalcifications and masses in women and breast cancer risk for their sisters. Furthermore, higher breast cancer risk scores in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for their sisters. Specifically, the hazard ratios for breast cancer per 1 standard deviation increase in age-adjusted KARMA, Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), and Tyrer-Cuzick risk scores were 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 1.27), 1.23 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.35), and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.32), respectively.
CONCLUSION: A woman's breast cancer risk factors are associated with her sister's breast cancer risk. However, the clinical utility of these findings requires further investigation.