Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27488681›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Standardized measures of lobular involution and subsequent breast cancer risk among women with benign breast disease: a nested case-control study.

Jonine D Figueroa, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Louise A Brinton, Maya M Palakal, Amy C Degnim, Derek Radisky, Lynn C Hartmann, Marlene H Frost, Melody L Stallings Mann, Daphne Papathomas and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Associations of Stem Cell Markers with Lobular Involution in Benign Breast Tissue.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonine D FigueroaDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. jonine.figueroa@ed.ac.uk.
Ruth M PfeifferDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Louise A BrintonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Maya M PalakalDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Amy C DegnimMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Derek RadiskyMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Lynn C HartmannMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Marlene H FrostMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Melody L Stallings MannMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Daphne PapathomasDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gretchen L GierachDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stephen M HewittCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Maire A DugganDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Daniel VisscherMayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mark E ShermanDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and GeneticsNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

Hormone-Related CancersZIACP010126 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI GIERACH, GRETCHEN · 2009 to 2025
$103.5M
The Role of CHFR in Tumorigenesis and Paclitaxel-Sensitivity in Breast CancerP50CA116201 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Fergus Joseph Couch · 2005 to 2026
$49.9M
Risk Prediction for Breast Cancer: A Tissue-Based StrategyR01CA132879 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI HARTMANN, LYNN C., PANKRATZ, V. SHANE · 2008 to 2012
$3.0M
CLINICAL/IMMUNOLOGIC/GENETIC ANALYSES OF AUTOIMMUNE LYMPHOPROLIFERATIVE SYNDROMEZ01AI000732 · NIAID · NIAID EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES · PI RAO, VEMULKONDA · 1995 to 2008
$1.1M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010126NCI NIH HHS P50 CA116201NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lesser degrees of terminal duct-lobular unit (TDLU) involution predict higher breast cancer risk; however, standardized measures to quantitate levels of TDLU involution have only recently been developed. We assessed whether three standardized measures of TDLU involution, with high intra/inter pathologist reproducibility in normal breast tissue, predict subsequent breast cancer risk among women in the Mayo benign breast disease (BBD) cohort. We performed a masked evaluation of biopsies from 99 women with BBD who subsequently developed breast cancer (cases) after a median of 16.9 years and 145 age-matched controls. We assessed three metrics inversely related to TDLU involution: TDLU count/mm(2), median TDLU span (microns, which approximates acini content), and median category of acini counts/TDLU (0-10; 11-20; 21-30; 31-50; >50). Associations with subsequent breast cancer risk for quartiles (or categories of acini counts) of each of these measures were assessed with multivariable conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). In multivariable models, women in the highest quartile compared to the lowest quartiles of TDLU counts and TDLU span measures were significantly associated with subsequent breast cancer diagnoses; TDLU counts quartile4 versus quartile1, OR = 2.44, 95 %CI 0.96-6.19, p-trend = 0.02; and TDLU spans, quartile4 versus quartile1, OR = 2.83, 95 %CI = 1.13-7.06, p-trend = 0.03. Significant associations with categorical measures of acini counts/TDLU were also observed: compared to women with median category of <10 acini/TDLU, women with >25 acini counts/TDLU were at significantly higher risk, OR = 3.40, 95 %CI 1.03-11.17, p-trend = 0.032. Women with TDLU spans and TDLU count measures above the median were at further increased risk, OR = 3.75 (95 %CI 1.40-10.00, p-trend = 0.008), compared with women below the median for both of these metrics. Similar results were observed for combinatorial metrics of TDLU acini counts/TDLU, and TDLU count. Standardized quantitative measures of TDLU counts and acini counts approximated by TDLU span measures or visually assessed in categories are independently associated with breast cancer risk. Visual assessment of TDLU numbers and acini content, which are highly reproducible between pathologists, could help identify women at high risk for subsequent breast cancer among the million women diagnosed annually with BBD in the US.

Indexed as

BiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleFibrocystic Breast DiseaseHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentBreast cancer riskLobular involution

Identifiers

PMID27488681
PMCPMC5045857
OpenAlexW2487431344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.