Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38916820›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024

Feasibility of risk assessment for breast cancer molecular subtypes.

Anne Marie McCarthy, Sarah Ehsan, Kevin S Hughes, Constance D Lehman, Emily F Conant, Despina Kontos, Katrina Armstrong, Jinbo Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Anne Marie McCarthyDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, Room 833, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. annemcc@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Sarah EhsanDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, Room 833, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Kevin S HughesDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Constance D LehmanMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Emily F ConantDepartment of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Despina KontosColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Katrina ArmstrongColumbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jinbo ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, Room 833, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

Phenotypic Diversity in COVID-19UL1TR001878 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2016 to 2025
$102.4M
Effect of Breast Density on Screening Recall with Digital Breast TomosynthesisR01CA161749 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KONTOS, DESPINA · 2012 to 2021
$3.6M
Radiomic phenotypes of breast parenchyma and association with breast cancer risk and detectionR01CA207084 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M, KONTOS, DESPINA · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
Evaluation of novel tomosynthesis density measures in breast cancer risk predictionR01CA275074 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE, Despina Kontos · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
American Cancer Society 131052-MRSG-17-144-01-CCENCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001878NCI NIH HHS R01 CA161749NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207084NCI NIH HHS R01 CA275074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFew breast cancer risk assessment models account for the risk profiles of different tumor subtypes. This study evaluated whether a subtype-specific approach improves discrimination.

methodsAmong 3389 women who had a screening mammogram and were later diagnosed with invasive breast cancer we performed multinomial logistic regression with tumor subtype as the outcome and known breast cancer risk factors as predictors. Tumor subtypes were defined by expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) based on immunohistochemistry. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Absolute risk of each subtype was estimated by proportioning Gail absolute risk estimates by the predicted probabilities for each subtype. We then compared risk factor distributions for women in the highest deciles of risk for each subtype.

resultsThere were 3,073 ER/PR+ HER2 - , 340 ER/PR +HER2 + , 126 ER/PR-ER2+, and 300 triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC). Discrimination differed by subtype; ER/PR-HER2+ (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.59, 0.69) and TNBC (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.68) had better discrimination than ER/PR+HER2+ (AUC: 0.61, 95% CI 0.58, 0.64). Compared to other subtypes, patients at high absolute risk of TNBC were younger, mostly Black, had no family history of breast cancer, and higher BMI. Those at high absolute risk of HER2+ cancers were younger and had lower BMI.

conclusionOur study provides proof of concept that stratifying risk prediction for breast cancer subtypes may enable identification of patients with unique profiles conferring increased risk for tumor subtypes.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMammographyMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBreast cancerRisk assessmentRisk prediction modelTriple-negative breast cancerTumor subtypes

Identifiers

PMID38916820
PMCPMC11452472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.