Colditz Graham A, Rosner Bernard A, Chen Wendy Y, Holmes Michelle D, Hankinson Susan E
Cancer Epidemiology Program, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, and Channing Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115-5899, USA.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Feb 4;96(3):218-28. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh025.
Evaluations of epidemiologic risk factors in relation to breast cancer classified jointly by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status have been inconsistent. To address this issue, we conducted a prospective evaluation of risk factors for breast cancer classified according to receptor status.
During 1 029 414 person-years of follow-up of 66 145 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study from 1980 through 2000, we identified 2096 incident cases of breast cancer for which information on ER/PR status was available: 1281 were ER+/PR+, 318 were ER+/PR-, 80 were ER-/PR+, and 417 were ER-/PR-. We fit a log-incidence model of breast cancer and used polychotomous logistic regression to compare coefficients for breast cancer risk factors in patients with different ER/PR status. To test for differences in risk factor odds ratios based on marginal ER/PR categories, we evaluated ER status controlling for PR status and vice versa. The predictive ability of our log-incidence model to discriminate between women who would develop ER+/PR+ breast cancer and those who would not (and similarly for ER-/PR- breast cancer) was evaluated by using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.
We observed statistically significant heterogeneity among the four ER/PR categories for some risk factors (age, menopausal status, body mass index [BMI] after menopause, the one-time adverse effect of first pregnancy, and past use of postmenopausal hormones) but not for others (benign breast disease, family history of breast cancer, alcohol use, and height). The one-time adverse association of first pregnancy with incidence was present for PR- but not for PR+ tumors after controlling for ER status (P =.007). However, the association of BMI after menopause with incidence was present for PR+ but not PR- tumors (P =.005). Statistically significant differences in the incidence of ER+ and ER- tumors were seen with age, both before and after menopause (P =.003), and with past use of postmenopausal hormones (P =.01). Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, adjusted for age, was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63 to 0.66) for ER+/PR+ tumors and 0.61 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.64) for ER-/PR- tumors.
Incidence rates and risk factors for breast cancer differ according to ER and PR status. Thus, to accurately estimate breast cancer risk, breast cancer cases should be divided according to the ER and PR status of the tumor.
雌激素受体(ER)和孕激素受体(PR)状态联合分类的乳腺癌相关流行病学危险因素评估结果并不一致。为解决这一问题,我们对根据受体状态分类的乳腺癌危险因素进行了前瞻性评估。
在1980年至2000年参与护士健康研究的66145名女性的1029414人年随访期间,我们确定了2096例有ER/PR状态信息的乳腺癌发病病例:1281例为ER+/PR+,318例为ER+/PR-,80例为ER-/PR+,417例为ER-/PR-。我们拟合了乳腺癌的对数发病率模型,并使用多分类逻辑回归比较不同ER/PR状态患者乳腺癌危险因素的系数。为了检验基于边缘ER/PR类别危险因素比值比的差异,我们在控制PR状态的情况下评估ER状态,反之亦然。我们使用受试者工作特征曲线分析评估对数发病率模型区分会发生ER+/PR+乳腺癌的女性和不会发生的女性(对于ER-/PR-乳腺癌同理)的预测能力。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。
我们观察到某些危险因素(年龄、绝经状态、绝经后体重指数[BMI]、首次怀孕的一次性不良影响以及绝经后激素的既往使用情况)在四个ER/PR类别之间存在统计学显著异质性,但其他危险因素(良性乳腺疾病、乳腺癌家族史、饮酒和身高)不存在。在控制ER状态后,首次怀孕与发病率的一次性不良关联在PR-肿瘤中存在,但在PR+肿瘤中不存在(P = 0.007)。然而,绝经后BMI与发病率的关联在PR+肿瘤中存在,但在PR-肿瘤中不存在(P = 0.005)。在绝经前后,ER+和ER-肿瘤的发病率在年龄方面均存在统计学显著差异(P = 0.003),在绝经后激素的既往使用情况方面也存在差异(P = 0.01)。对于ER+/PR+肿瘤,调整年龄后的受试者工作特征曲线下面积为0.64(95%置信区间[CI] = 0.63至0.66),对于ER-/PR-肿瘤为0.61(95%CI = 0.58至0.64)。
乳腺癌的发病率和危险因素因ER和PR状态而异。因此,为准确估计乳腺癌风险,应根据肿瘤的ER和PR状态对乳腺癌病例进行分类。