Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 174, Issue 2, pp 453–461 | Cite as

Association between breast cancer risk factors and molecular type in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer

  • Marius Wunderle
  • Jutta Pretscher
  • Sara Y. Brucker
  • Bernhard Volz
  • Arndt Hartmann
  • Cornelia Fiessler
  • Alexander Hein
  • Lothar Häberle
  • Sebastian M. Jud
  • Michael P. Lux
  • Wolfgang Janni
  • Christian R. Loehberg
  • Andreas D. Hartkopf
  • Christina B. Walter
  • Gerold Baake
  • Alexander Fridman
  • Wolfram Malter
  • Rachel Wuerstlein
  • Nadia Harbeck
  • Oliver Hoffmann
  • Sherko Kümmel
  • Bernhard Martin
  • Christoph Thomssen
  • Heiko Graf
  • Christopher Wolf
  • Christian M. Bayer
  • Carolin C. Hack
  • Katrin Almstedt
  • Paul Gass
  • Felix Heindl
  • Tobias F. Brodkorb
  • Naiba Nabieva
  • Christoph Lindner
  • Hans-Christian Kolberg
  • Petra Krabisch
  • Michael Weigel
  • Dieter Steinfeld-Birg
  • Andreas Kohls
  • Cosima Brucker
  • Volker Schulz
  • Gunnar Fischer
  • Volker Pelzer
  • Diethelm Wallwiener
  • Brigitte Rack
  • Tanja Fehm
  • Achim Rody
  • Nicolai Maass
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
  • Peter A. FaschingEmail author
  • Claudia Rauh
Clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence shows that genetic and non-genetic risk factors for breast cancer (BC) differ relative to the molecular subtype. This analysis aimed to investigate associations between epidemiological risk factors and immunohistochemical subtypes in a cohort of postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive BC patients.

Methods

The prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase IV PreFace study (Evaluation of Predictive Factors Regarding the Effectivity of Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy) included 3529 postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early BC. Data on their epidemiological risk factors were obtained from patients’ diaries and their medical histories. Data on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor status were obtained from pathology reports. Patients with incomplete information were excluded. Data were analyzed using conditional inference regression analysis, analysis of variance, and the chi-squared test.

Results

In a cohort of 3392 patients, the strongest association with the molecular subtypes of BC was found for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) before diagnosis of early BC. The analysis showed that patients who took HRT at diagnosis had luminal A-like BC more often (83.7%) than those who had never taken HRT or had stopped taking it (75.5%). Luminal B-like BC and HER2-positive BC were diagnosed more often in women who had never taken HRT or had stopped taking it (13.3% and 11.2%, respectively) than in women who were taking HRT at diagnosis of BC (8.3% and 8.0%, respectively).

Conclusions

This analysis shows an association between HRT and the distribution of molecular subtypes of BC. However, no associations between other factors (e.g., age at diagnosis, body mass index, smoking status, age at menopause, number of deliveries, age at first delivery, breastfeeding history, or family history) were noted.

Keywords

Breast cancer Molecular subtype Risk factors Hormone replacement therapy Prognosis 

Notes

Author contributions

MW, JP, PAF, and CR contributed to the acquisition and interpretation of data, to the conception, drafting, and critical revision of the manuscript. CF and LH performed statistical analyses and contributed to critical revision of the manuscript. SYB, BV, AH, AH, SMJ, MPL, WJ, CRL, ADH, CBW, GB, AF, WM, RW, NH, OH, SK, BM, CT, HG, CW, CMB, CCH, KA, PG, FH, TFB, NN, CL, HCK, PK, MW, DSB, AK, CB, VS, GF, VP, DW, BR, TF, AR, NM, and MWB were involved in the acquisition of patient and tumor data and in critical revision of the manuscript. All authors have read the manuscript and have given their final approval for publication of this study.

Funding

This work was supported in part by Novartis Pharma GmbH Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A Hartmann received honoraria from BMS, Roche, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, NanoString, and BioNTech and funding from NanoString, BioNTech, and Janssen-Cilag. MPL received honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eisai, Medac, and Thieme for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. WJ received research grants from Novartis. ADH participated on advisory boards for Novartis. RW participated on advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Lilly. SK participated on advisory boards for Roche/Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Celgene, SOMATEX, Daiichi Sankyo, Puma Biotechnology, pfm medical, Pfizer, and MSD Oncology and received funding from Roche and Daiichi Sankyo. CT received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genomic Health, Lilly, NanoString, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Roche for lectures and advisory boards. CCH received honoraria from Roche. PG received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. NN received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and Novartis. HCK received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Roche, and Genomic Health and is stock owner of Theraclion and Phaon Scientific GmbH. MW participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Celgene. BR participated on advisory boards for Novartis and Roche and received funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, and Sanofi Aventis. TF participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. MWB’s institution received research grants from Novartis. PAF received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Amgen. CR received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, and Eisai. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval for the study was obtained from the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine at Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and all of the relevant local ethics committees. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients as part of the inclusion criteria before they entered the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perou CM et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ades F et al (2014) Luminal B breast cancer: molecular characterization, clinical management, and future perspectives. J Clin Oncol 32(25):2794–2803Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sotiriou C, Pusztai L (2009) Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360(8):790–800Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheang MC et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10):736–750Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taran FA et al (2018) Update breast cancer 2018 (Part 1)—primary breast cancer and biomarkers. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 78(3):237–245Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schneeweiss A et al (2018) Update breast cancer 2018 (Part 2)—advanced breast cancer, quality of life and prevention. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 78(3):246–259Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast C (2002) Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease. Lancet 360(9328):187–195Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM (2000) ABC of breast diseases. Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ 321(7261):624–628Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renehan AG et al (2008) Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 371(9612):569–578Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tamimi RM et al (2012) Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131(1):159–167Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rauh C et al (2015) Association of molecular subtypes with breast cancer risk factors: a case-only analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 24(6):484–490Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambertini M et al (2016) Reproductive behaviors and risk of developing breast cancer according to tumor subtype: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer Treat Rev 49:65–76Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sisti JS et al (2016) Reproductive risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer: results from the nurses’ health studies. Int J Cancer 138(10):2346–2356Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colditz GA et al (2004) Risk factors for breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(3):218–228Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sherman ME et al (2007) Variation in breast cancer hormone receptor and HER2 levels by etiologic factors: a population-based analysis. Int J Cancer 121(5):1079–1085Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fasching PA et al (2011) Breast cancer risk—genes, environment and clinics. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 71(12):1056–1066Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fasching PA et al (2013) Breast cancer risk—from genetics to molecular understanding of pathogenesis. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73(12):1228–1235Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Antoniou AC et al (2010) A locus on 19p13 modifies risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is associated with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer in the general population. Nat Genet 42(10):885–892Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garcia-Closas M et al (2013) Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci. Nat Genet 45(4):392–398Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fasching PA et al (2012) The role of genetic breast cancer susceptibility variants as prognostic factors. Hum Mol Genet 21(17):3926–3939Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haberle L et al (2017) Predicting triple-negative breast cancer subtype using multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk and several variable selection methods. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77(6):667–678Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fagerholm R et al (2015) The SNP rs6500843 in 16p13.3 is associated with survival specifically among chemotherapy-treated breast cancer patients. Oncotarget 6(10):7390–7407Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fagerholm R et al (2017) TP53-based interaction analysis identifies cis-eQTL variants for TP53BP2, FBXO28, and FAM53A that associate with survival and treatment outcome in breast cancer. Oncotarget 8(11):18381–18398Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hein A et al (2014) Polymorphisms in the RANK/RANKL genes and their effect on bone specific prognosis in breast cancer patients. Biomed Res Int 2014:842452Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hein A et al (2017) Genetic Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Prognosis in the Prospectively Randomized SUCCESS A Study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77(6):651–659Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wunderle M et al (2018) Risk, Prediction and Prevention of Hereditary Breast Cancer - Large-Scale Genomic Studies in Times of Big and Smart Data. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 78(5):481–492Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wunderle M et al (2018) BRCA mutations and their influence on pathological complete response and prognosis in a clinical cohort of neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171(1):85–94Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heusinger K et al (2011) Mammographic density as a risk factor for breast cancer in a German case-control study. Eur J Cancer Prev 20(1):1–8Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boyd NF et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356(3):227–236Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heusinger K et al (2012) Association of mammographic density with hormone receptors in invasive breast cancers: results from a case-only study. Int J Cancer 131(11):2643–2649Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heusinger K et al (2012) Association of mammographic density with the proliferation marker Ki-67 in a cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135(3):885–892Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lux MP et al (2017) Update Breast Cancer 2017 - Implementation of Novel Therapies. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77(12):1281–1290Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldhirsch A et al (2005) Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 16(10):1569–1583Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. J Comput Gr Stat 15:651–674Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R Core Team (2017) R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org
  38. 38.
    Anderson KN, Schwab RB, Martinez ME (2014) Reproductive risk factors and breast cancer subtypes: a review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):1–10Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chlebowski RT et al (2003) Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 289(24):3243–3253Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cui Y et al (2014) Interactions of hormone replacement therapy, body weight, and bilateral oophorectomy in breast cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res 20(5):1169–1178Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barnard ME, Boeke CE, Tamimi RM (2015) Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1856(1):73–85Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Holli K, Isola J, Cuzick J (1998) Low biologic aggressiveness in breast cancer in women using hormone replacement therapy. J Clin Oncol 16(9):3115–3120Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Daling JR et al (2003) Association of regimens of hormone replacement therapy to prognostic factors among women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 50–64 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12(11 Pt 1):1175–1181Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rauh C et al (2015) Hormone Therapy and its Effect on the Prognosis in Breast Cancer Patients. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 75(6):588–596Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schairer C et al (1999) Estrogen replacement therapy and breast cancer survival in a large screening study. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(3):264–270Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Esteve J et al (2002) Does a better grade of tumour occurring in women under hormone replacement therapy compensate for their lower probability of detection by screening mammography. J Med Screen 9(2):70–73Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bonnier P et al (1998) Impact of menopausal hormone-replacement therapy on clinical and laboratory characteristics of breast cancer. Int J Cancer 79(3):278–282Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schuetz F et al (2007) Reduced incidence of distant metastases and lower mortality in 1072 patients with breast cancer with a history of hormone replacement therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(4):342 e1–e9Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Phipps AI et al (2008) Reproductive and hormonal risk factors for postmenopausal luminal, HER-2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 113(7):1521–1526Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Setiawan VW et al (2009) Breast cancer risk factors defined by estrogen and progesterone receptor status: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 169(10):1251–1259Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ritte R et al (2012) Adiposity, hormone replacement therapy use and breast cancer risk by age and hormone receptor status: a large prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 14(3):R76Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bao PP et al (2011) Association of hormone-related characteristics and breast cancer risk by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status in the shanghai breast cancer study. Am J Epidemiol 174(6):661–671Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ellingjord-Dale M et al (2017) Parity, hormones and breast cancer subtypes - results from a large nested case-control study in a national screening program. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):10Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosenberg LU et al (2006) Risk factors for hormone receptor-defined breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(12):2482–2488Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Untch M et al (2017) Initial Treatment of Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Evidence, Controversies, Consensus: Spectrum of Opinion of German Specialists at the 15th International St. Gallen Breast Cancer Conference (Vienna 2017). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77(6):633–644Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Wunderle
    • 1
  • Jutta Pretscher
    • 1
  • Sara Y. Brucker
    • 2
  • Bernhard Volz
    • 1
  • Arndt Hartmann
    • 3
  • Cornelia Fiessler
    • 4
  • Alexander Hein
    • 1
  • Lothar Häberle
    • 1
  • Sebastian M. Jud
    • 1
  • Michael P. Lux
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Janni
    • 5
  • Christian R. Loehberg
    • 1
  • Andreas D. Hartkopf
    • 2
  • Christina B. Walter
    • 2
  • Gerold Baake
    • 6
  • Alexander Fridman
    • 7
    • 8
  • Wolfram Malter
    • 7
  • Rachel Wuerstlein
    • 9
  • Nadia Harbeck
    • 9
  • Oliver Hoffmann
    • 10
  • Sherko Kümmel
    • 11
  • Bernhard Martin
    • 12
  • Christoph Thomssen
    • 13
  • Heiko Graf
    • 14
  • Christopher Wolf
    • 15
  • Christian M. Bayer
    • 1
  • Carolin C. Hack
    • 1
  • Katrin Almstedt
    • 16
  • Paul Gass
    • 1
  • Felix Heindl
    • 1
  • Tobias F. Brodkorb
    • 1
  • Naiba Nabieva
    • 1
  • Christoph Lindner
    • 17
  • Hans-Christian Kolberg
    • 18
  • Petra Krabisch
    • 19
  • Michael Weigel
    • 20
  • Dieter Steinfeld-Birg
    • 21
  • Andreas Kohls
    • 22
  • Cosima Brucker
    • 23
  • Volker Schulz
    • 24
  • Gunnar Fischer
    • 25
  • Volker Pelzer
    • 26
  • Diethelm Wallwiener
    • 2
  • Brigitte Rack
    • 5
  • Tanja Fehm
    • 27
  • Achim Rody
    • 28
  • Nicolai Maass
    • 29
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
    • 1
  • Peter A. Fasching
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia Rauh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMNErlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Pathology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMNErlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and EpidemiologyFriedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUlm University HospitalUlmGermany
  6. 6.Oncological Medical Practice PinnebergPinnebergGermany
  7. 7.Breast Center, Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany
  8. 8.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsEvangelic Hospital KalkCologneGermany
  9. 9.Breast Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity of Munich (LMU)MunichGermany
  10. 10.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital EssenUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  11. 11.Breast UnitKliniken Essen-MitteEssenGermany
  12. 12.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsTuttlingen ClinicTuttlingenGermany
  13. 13.Department of GynecologyMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  14. 14.Breast CenterHelios Clinic MeiningenMeiningenGermany
  15. 15.Ulm Medical CenterUlmGermany
  16. 16.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyJohannes Gutenberg UniversityMainzGermany
  17. 17.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsAgaplesion Diakonie Clinic HamburgHamburgGermany
  18. 18.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsMarienhospital BottropBottropGermany
  19. 19.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsKlinikum ChemnitzChemnitzGermany
  20. 20.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsLeopoldina Hospital SchweinfurtSchweinfurtGermany
  21. 21.Gynecological Oncological Practice AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  22. 22.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsEvangelic County Hospital Ludwigsfelde-TeltowLudwigsfelde-TeltowGermany
  23. 23.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsParacelsus Private Medical University of NurembergNurembergGermany
  24. 24.Gynecological Practice abts+partner KielKielGermany
  25. 25.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsMittweida HospitalMittweidaGermany
  26. 26.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsSt. Marien Hospital BonnBonnGermany
  27. 27.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsHeinrich Heine University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  28. 28.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital of Schleswig-HolsteinLübeckGermany
  29. 29.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital of Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany

Personalised recommendations