-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2022Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36183671
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2022Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments can reduce breast cancer mortality but may increase mortality from other causes. Information regarding treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adjuvant and neoadjuvant breast cancer treatments can reduce breast cancer mortality but may increase mortality from other causes. Information regarding treatment benefits and risks is scattered widely through the literature. To inform clinical practice we collated and reviewed the highest quality evidence.
METHODS
Guidelines were searched to identify adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment options recommended in early invasive breast cancer. For each option, systematic literature searches identified the highest-ranking evidence. For radiotherapy risks, searches for dose-response relationships and modern organ doses were also undertaken.
RESULTS
Treatment options recommended in the USA and elsewhere included chemotherapy (anthracycline, taxane, platinum, capecitabine), anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 therapy (trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab emtansine, neratinib), endocrine therapy (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitor, ovarian ablation/suppression) and bisphosphonates. Radiotherapy options were after breast conserving surgery (whole breast, partial breast, tumour bed boost, regional nodes) and after mastectomy (chest wall, regional nodes). Treatment options were supported by randomised evidence, including > 10,000 women for eight treatment comparisons, 1,000-10,000 for fifteen and < 1,000 for one. Most treatment comparisons reduced breast cancer mortality or recurrence by 10-25%, with no increase in non-breast-cancer death. Anthracycline chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased overall non-breast-cancer mortality. Anthracycline risk was from heart disease and leukaemia. Radiation-risks were mainly from heart disease, lung cancer and oesophageal cancer, and increased with increasing heart, lung and oesophagus radiation doses respectively. Taxanes increased leukaemia risk.
CONCLUSIONS
These benefits and risks inform treatment decisions for individuals and recommendations for groups of women.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 35367784
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102375 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2022Soy contains genistein and daidzein isoflavones. Isoflavones are phytoestrogens, with a similarity in structure to human 17-β estradiol hormone. They imitate the action... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Soy contains genistein and daidzein isoflavones. Isoflavones are phytoestrogens, with a similarity in structure to human 17-β estradiol hormone. They imitate the action of estrogen on organs by binding and activating estrogen receptors. Numerous studies have examined the relationship between soy consumption and breast cancer but not the amount of consumption itself. We performed a systematic review of the literature in order to determine whether the amount of soy and isoflavones consumed has a positive effect in pre- and post-menopausal women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data gathering was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Narrowing down the result set for all relevant data was performed via title, abstract, full-text evaluation and the snowball procedure. The selected articles had all relevant data extracted. Analysis of the data was performed using Cochrane's Review Manager statistical analysis tool in order to draw conclusions regarding the positive effect for the amount of soy and isoflavones consumed.
RESULTS
Significant results were found when statistically analyzing data from prospective studies which compared soy isoflavones consumption, breast cancer risk and occurrence. The data were indicative of a clear inverse correlation between the amount of isoflavones consumed and breast cancer occurrence in pre- and post-menopausal women.
CONCLUSION
The consumption of soy isoflavones can reduce the risk of breast cancer in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genistein; Humans; Isoflavones; Phytoestrogens; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35241506
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12737 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2022Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40-74 years, specifically, those aged 50-69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35636342
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022Evidences which prove relation between breastfeeding women and risk of breast cancer have been limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidences which prove relation between breastfeeding women and risk of breast cancer have been limited.
OBJECTIVE
A meta-analysis was carried out on the basis of published literature from clinical trials and studies among different parts of the world.
METHODS
Studies were analyzed and extracted using PRISMA flowchart. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for analyzing the extracted data. Included studies were fully cited texts with complete information about studies, trails conducted for risk of breast cancer, and breastfeeding correlations.
RESULTS
Menarche age, family history, lactation duration, and menopausal status have a strong effect on the risks of breast cancer. Family history studies concluded that for 95% CI, the risk ratio was 2.66 (2.00, 3.52).
CONCLUSION
Findings have suggested that family history and lactation duration affect the risks of breast cancer.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Breast Feeding; Breast Neoplasms; Child; Computational Biology; Female; Humans; Lactation; Menarche; Menopause; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 35126640
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8500910 -
Pathologica Apr 2022Phyllodes tumors (PT) are fibroepithelial neoplasms of the breast showing a peculiar leaf-like appearance. They account for 0.3 to 1% of all primary breast tumors and... (Review)
Review
Phyllodes tumors (PT) are fibroepithelial neoplasms of the breast showing a peculiar leaf-like appearance. They account for 0.3 to 1% of all primary breast tumors and 2.5% of all fibroepithelial breast tumors. PT are classified into benign, borderline and malignant based upon their stromal morphology with a distribution of 60%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. Malignant PT of the breast constitute an uncommon challenging group of fibroepithelial neoplasms. They have a relatively high tendency to recur, although distant metastasis is uncommon, and nearly exclusive to malignant PT. Adequate surgical resection remains the standard approach to achieve maximal local control. Giant malignant PT are rare and a pose a diagnostic dilemma for pathologists, especially when comprised of sarcomatous elements. This review highlights the morphological features of PT detected in cytology and histology specimens and discusses diagnostic pitfalls and differential diagnosis.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms, Fibroepithelial; Phyllodes Tumor
PubMed: 35414723
DOI: 10.32074/1591-951X-754 -
Effect of BRCA germline mutations on breast cancer prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine Oct 2016The contribution of BRCA germline mutational status to breast cancer patients' prognosis is unclear. We aimed to systematically review and perform meta-analysis of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The contribution of BRCA germline mutational status to breast cancer patients' prognosis is unclear. We aimed to systematically review and perform meta-analysis of the available evidence of effects of BRCA germline mutations on multiple survival outcomes of breast cancer patients as a whole and in specific subgroups of interest, including those with triple negative breast cancer, those with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and patients with stage I-III disease.
METHODS
Sixty studies met all inclusion criteria and were considered for this meta-analysis. These studies involved 105,220 breast cancer patients, whose 3588 (3.4%) were BRCA mutations carriers. The associations between BRCA genes mutational status and overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were evaluated using random-effect models.
RESULTS
BRCA1 mutation carriers have worse OS than BRCA-negative/sporadic cases (hazard ratio, HR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.11-1.52) and worse BCSS than sporadic/BRCA-negative cases among patients with stage I-III breast cancer (HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01-2.07). BRCA2 mutation carriers have worse BCSS than sporadic/BRCA-negative cases (HR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.03-1.62), although they have similar OS. Among triple negative breast cancer, BRCA1/2 mutations carriers had better OS than BRCA-negative counterpart (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92). Among Ashkenazi Jewish women, BRCA1/2 mutations carriers presented higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.05-1.97) and of distant metastases (HR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.05-3.16) than sporadic/BRCA-negative patients.
CONCLUSION
Our results support the evaluation of BRCA mutational status in patients with high risk of harboring BRCA germline mutations to better define the prognosis of breast cancer in these patients.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genes, BRCA1; Genes, BRCA2; Genes, Tumor Suppressor; Germ-Line Mutation; Humans; Jews; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Survival Analysis; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 27749552
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004975 -
Central European Journal of Public... Sep 2016Over the last decade, the possible association between underarm deodorants/ antiperspirants use and breast cancer risk has raised important interest in the scientific... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade, the possible association between underarm deodorants/ antiperspirants use and breast cancer risk has raised important interest in the scientific community. The objective of our systematic review is to estimate the pooled risk of deodorants/antiperspirants use for breast cancer.
METHODS
All observational studies that evaluated the association between breast cancer risk and deodorants/antiperspirants use were reviewed. We have only identified two case-control studies, carried out between 2002 and 2006.
RESULTS
The first study was conducted in USA and investigated the possible relationship between use of products applied for underarm perspiration and the risk for breast cancer in women aged 20-74 years. This population-based case-control study gathered information by in-person interview. The second study was conducted in Iraq and investigated the possible relationship between use of antiperspirants and the risk for breast cancer in women attending a teaching hospital. This study also gathered information by in-person interview. There was no risk of antiperspirants use in the pooled risk (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.46).
CONCLUSION
Our comprehensive search has identified an insufficient number of studies to conduct a quantitative review and obtain reliable results. Further prospective studies are strongly needed.
Topics: Aluminum Compounds; Antiperspirants; Breast Neoplasms; Deodorants; Female; Humans; Parabens; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27755864
DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a4475 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2017Observational studies examining the relationship between hypertension and breast cancer risk have reported conflicting findings. We conducted this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Observational studies examining the relationship between hypertension and breast cancer risk have reported conflicting findings. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence regarding the association between hypertension and risk of breast cancer. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library until August 2016. We included observational studies that reported relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results from individual studies were pooled by using a random-effects model. 29 articles of 30 studies, with totally 11643 cases of breast cancer, were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We observed a statistically significant association between hypertension and increased breast cancer risk (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.22). In the subgroup analysis, we found a positive association between hypertension and breast cancer incidence among postmenopausal women (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.31). In contrast, hypertension was not associated with risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.12) and Asian population (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.22).This meta-analysis collectively suggests a significantly association between hypertension and breast cancer risk, specifically for postmenopausal hypertensive women.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Hypertension; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28317900
DOI: 10.1038/srep44877