Impact of breast cancer family history on tumor detection and tumor size in women newly-diagnosed with invasive breast cancer

This study evaluated the impact of family history (FH) on tumor detection, the patient’s age and tumor size at diagnosis in breast cancer (BC). Furthermore, we investigated whether the impact of FH on these features was dependent on degree of relationship, number of relatives with a BC history, or the age of the affected relative at the time that her BC was diagnosed. Out of the entire cohort (n = 1,037), 244 patients (23.5 %) had a positive FH; 159 (15.3 %) had first-degree relatives affected with BC and 85 patients (8.2 %) had second-degree affected relatives. Compared to women who had no BC-affected relatives, the tumors of women who had positive FH were more often found by radiological breast examination (RBE: 31.7 %/27.2 %, p = 0.008), and they were smaller (general tumor size: 21.8 mm/26.4 mm, p = 0.003; size of tumors found by breast self-examination (BSE): 26.1 mm/30.6 mm, p = 0.041). However, this positive effect of increased use of BC screening and smaller tumor sizes was only observed in patients whose first-degree relatives were affected (comparison with second-degree affected relatives: RBE: 43.8 %/24.7 %; odds ratio 2.38, p = 0.007; general tumor size: 19.3 mm/26.3 mm; mean difference (MD) ?6.9, p = 0.025; tumor size found by BSE: 22.5 mm/31.0 mm; MD ?8.5, p = 0.044). When more second-degree relatives or older relatives were diagnosed with BC, the tumors of these patients were similarly often detected by RBE (relationship: 24.7 %/27.2 %, p = 0.641; age: 33.7 %/27.2 %, p = 0.177) and had similar tumor sizes (general size: 26.3 mm/26.4 mm, p = 0.960; BSE: 31.0 mm/30.6 mm, p = 0.902) as those of women without a FH. Women with a positive FH generally use mammography screening more often and perceive changes in the breast earlier than women without such history. The increased awareness of BC risk decreases if the relationship is more distant.     

Rh factor, family history and risk of breast cancer: A case-control study in Uruguay

Objective: To explore possible relationships among blood factors, family history of breast cancer (BC) and the risk of the disease, a case-control study was carried out in Montevideo, Uruguay. Methods: Eight hundred and one patients were interviewed, including 252 certified cases of BC and 549 frequency-matched controls. Blood groups (ABO, Rh) were obtained from medical records. Multivariate analyses were performed, adjusting for age, selected menstrual and reproductive factors, and family history of BC as well as of other cancers. Results: We found that the absence of Rh factor (Rh−) was positively associated with the risk of BC (adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 1.05-2.11). Stratified analyses by family history of BC showed a strong association for Rh− with a positive history of first degree relatives (OR = 3.17, 95% CI 1.06-9.47). Also stratified analyses by family history of other cancers showed a positive association for Rh− with a positive history of first degree relatives (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.05-4.11). Conclusion: Regarding the implications of an inherited factor like Rh and its associations with the family history of BC, it might increase the probability to generate high-risk individuals if further studies confirm the present preliminary findings.     

Accuracy of breast screening among women with and without a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer

SummaryObjectives To compare interval cancer rates, sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer screening between women with moderate or strong family history and women without a family history.Methods From 1996 to 1997, 115,460 women aged 50 to 69 screened by the Ontario Breast Screening Program, offering eligible women screening with mammography and clinical breast examination, were examined. Women were followed for up to 12 months after their screening examination. Family history definitions were based on the number of affected first degree relatives and their ages at diagnosis. Multivariate analysis was conducted to adjust for potential confounding variables.Results Interval cancer rates increased across family history groups and were greatest in women with a strong family history. The rate ratio (RR) for interval cancer rate in women with a strong family history compared to women without a family history approached significance (RR=2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–5.34), while for women with a moderate family history it did not (RR=1.37, 95% CI 0.62–3.04). A slightly but not significantly lower sensitivity was observed in women with a strong family history compared to women without a family history. There was little variation in specificity across family history groups.Conclusions Screening was able to detect a large proportion of invasive breast cancers in women with a family history, indicating their potential to benefit from regular breast cancer screening. However, due to increased interval cancer rates, screening with one-year intervals may be important even in an older population of women with a family history.     

Family history and risk of breast cancer in hispanic and non-hispanic women: the New Mexico Women's Health Study

Objectives: Many epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that an increased risk of breast cancer is associated with positive family history of this disease. Little information had been available on the relationship of breast cancer risk with family history in Hispanic women. To investigate the association of family history of breast cancer on the risk of breast cancer, we examined the data from the New Mexico Women's Health Study (NMWHS), a statewide case–control study. Methods: In this study 712 women (332 Hispanics and 380 non-Hispanic whites) with breast cancer and 844 controls (388 Hispanics and 456 non-Hispanic whites) were included. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), adjusted for sociodemographic, medical, and reproductive factors. Results: We found an increased risk in women with a history of breast cancer in one or more first-degree or second-degree relatives (OR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9), first-degree relatives (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.8) and second-degree relatives (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.2). Hispanic women had higher risk estimates for a positive family history (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.1–2.5) than non-Hispanic white women (OR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.0); however, the differences were not statistically significant. In both ethnic groups a higher risk was observed in premenopausal women compared with postmenopausal women and women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50years compared with older women. Conclusions: The results indicate that Hispanic women with a family history of breast cancer are at increased risk of breast cancer.     

Family history of breast and ovarian cancer and the risk of breast carcinoma in situ

A family history of breast cancer is an important risk factor for breast carcinoma in situ (BCIS), however, there are no detailed analyses of its variation in effect by number, type, laterality or age at onset of affected relatives nor by association with ovarian cancer. In addition, the role of the breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, in the development of BCIS is unclear. Objective. To better define the role of: (1) a family history of breast and ovarian cancer and (2) the cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, in the development of BCIS. Methods. The data are 875 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 123 lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) cases diagnosed among residents of the state of Connecticut from September 15, 1994 to March 14, 1998 and between the age of 20 and 79 years. Controls (n = 999) are female Connecticut residents collected via random-digit-dial and frequency matched to the cases by 5-year age intervals. Telephone interviews were used to collect information on risk factors and cancer screening history.Logistic regression was used to provide maximum likelihood estimates of the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The probability of being a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 gene carrier was calculated for each case and control, using family history of breast and ovarian cancer, age/age at diagnosis for relatives, prevalence and penetrance data for BRCA1/BRCA2, and self-report of Jewish heritage. Results. Cases with DCIS or LCIS were significantly more likely to report a first degree family history of breast cancer (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3, 2.1 and 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, respectively) than were controls. In addition, DCIS cases were 2.4 (95% CI: 0.8, 7.2) times more likely than controls to report both an affected mother and sister. An inverse association was suggested between age at onset and DCIS risk with cases aged 49 years or younger at 2.1 (95% CI: 1.3, 3.4) times the risk of controls (95% CI) versus 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.0) for cases older than 49 years. An elevated risk of DCIS was associated with a family history of ovarian cancer but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.7, 2.5). Approximately 3.7% and 1.9% of DCIS cases were predicted to carry a mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Conclusions. A family history of breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of DCIS and LCIS, particularly among women with multiple relatives affected at early ages. Statistical risk models predict a low prevalence rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in DCIS; these estimates await confirmation through laboratory testing.     

Varying Levels of Family History of Breast Cancer in Relation to Mammographic Breast Density (United States)

Objective We examined the relationship between breast cancer family history and mammographic breast density. Methods Participants included 35,019 postmenopausal women aged ≥40 years enrolled in a population-based mammography screening program. We collected data on the number and type of 1st and 2nd degree female relatives with a history of breast cancer and their ages at diagnosis. We used the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System™ breast density categories to identify women with fatty (1 = almost entirely fatty or 2 = scattered fibroglandular tissue) and dense (3 = heterogeneously dense or 4 = extremely dense) breasts. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for dense (N = 18,111) compared to fatty breasts (N = 16,908). Results The odds of having dense breasts were 17% greater for women with affected 1st degree relatives than women with no family history. The odds increased with more affected 1st degree relatives [≥3 vs. none (OR = 1.46; 1.05–2.01)] and among women with ≥1 affected 1st degree relative diagnosed <50 years (OR = 1.22; 1.10–1.34). Conclusions Having a family history of breast cancer was more strongly associated with mammographic breast density when the affected relatives were more genetically similar. There may be common, yet undiscovered, genetic elements that affect breast cancer and mammographic breast density. Financial Support: This study was supported by grant CA063731 from the National Cancer Institute.     

Family history and risk of breast cancer: an analysis accounting for family structure

Purpose

Family history is an important risk factor for breast cancer incidence, but the parameters conventionally used to categorize it are based solely on numbers and/or ages of breast cancer cases in the family and take no account of the size and age-structure of the woman’s family.

Methods

Using data from the Generations Study, a cohort of over 113,000 women from the general UK population, we analyzed breast cancer risk in relation to first-degree family history using a family history score (FHS) that takes account of the expected number of family cases based on the family’s age-structure and national cancer incidence rates.

Results

Breast cancer risk increased significantly (P _trend < 0.0001) with greater FHS. There was a 3.5-fold (95% CI 2.56–4.79) range of risk between the lowest and highest FHS groups, whereas women who had two or more relatives with breast cancer, the strongest conventional familial risk factor, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.83–3.47) increase in risk. Using likelihood ratio tests, the best model for determining breast cancer risk due to family history was that combining FHS and age of relative at diagnosis.

Conclusions

A family history score based on expected as well as observed breast cancers in a family can give greater risk discrimination on breast cancer incidence than conventional parameters based solely on cases in affected relatives. Our modeling suggests that a yet stronger predictor of risk might be a combination of this score and age at diagnosis in relatives.

     

Family history and bilateral primary breast cancer

Summary The prevalence of a family history of breast cancer was established in 54 women with bilateral primary breast cancer and 208 women with unilateral disease. Women with bilateral disease had significantly greater prevalence of family history than women with unilateral breast cancer (P<0.01). Compared with the unilateral cancers, a significantly greater proportion of bilateral cancers had first degree affected relatives (P<0.05). Moreover the affected relatives of probands with bilateral disease showed a significantly higher prevalence of bilateral breast cancer compared with the relatives of women with unilateral disease (P = 0.04). The findings suggested that bilateral disease was a characteristic of familial breast cancer.     

Impact of comorbidity on outcome of older breast cancer patients: a FOCUS cohort study

The objective of this nationwide prospective cohort study is to find out the risk of breast cancer (BC) in relatives of patients with multiple BCs by laterality and age at diagnosis of first BC. Having family history of single (HR 1.8; 95 % CI 1.8–1.9) or multiple (HR 2.7; 95 % CI 2.6–2.9) BC was associated with higher risk of BC. Those with an FDR with contralateral BC at any age had the highest risk of familial cancer except at age <40 in which those whose young FDR was affected by multiple ipsilateral BC had the highest risk (HR 9.7; 95 % CI 6.0–15.6). The familial risk of BC in these families decreased as the subject’s and FDRs’ age at diagnosis of first BC increased. The HR was still significantly increased (2.2) for old individuals (>60) having a FDR with contralateral BC at an advanced age (≥80). Despite the common belief that later onset breast cancer is more associated with sporadic breast cancer, our data suggest that breast cancer at any age in the family is associated with some increase in the familial risk, though that risk decreases as the age of onset increases. Contralateral and multiple ipsilateral breast cancers might be associated with distinct shared familial risk factors. Our results have implication for genetic counseling and urge gene identification studies.     

Family history of breast cancer and breast cancer risk in Japan

We studied 132 families with a family history of breast cancer (familial aggregation cases, FA cases) to assess the breast cancer risk presented by such a family history. For comparison with these FA cases, we randomly selected 132 control families of sporadic cases (SP controls) by adjusting for the age of the proband at surgery. Information on family history was collected for all first-degree female relatives and maternal and paternal grandmothers. Japanese women with a first-degree relative affected by breast cancer were found to have an increased risk of the disease. The odds ratio (OR) for women with a family history of breast cancer was 1.99 (95% confidence interval [ CI ], 1.48-2.66). The OR for FA-case doughters of women with breast cancer was 1.54 (95% CI, 0.91-2.63). A higher risk was not observed if a woman's mother had breast cancer. If the proband had a sister with breast cancer, a slightly increased risk of other cancers of the proband was observed (OR, 1.85 [ 0.87-3.92]). These results suggest that a family history of breast cancer in Japanese women may affect their risk of developing cancer of the breast and other organs.     

A cohort study of reproductive factors and family history of breast cancer in southern Sweden

Background. Studies have been contradictory regarding the hypothesis that reproductive risk factors of breast cancer as parity and age at first full-term pregnancy (AFFP) operate differently in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Methods. The overall tumour incidence and breast cancer incidence related to fertility factors were followed in a population based cohort of 29,508 women aged 25–65 when interviewed between 1990 and 1992 in south Sweden. At the end of the follow up in December 1999, the cohort constituted 226,611 person years. The risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors were studied in women with at least one first degree relative with breast cancer and compared with women without a family history. Findings. A total of 1145 malignant tumours were seen and 1166.6 were expected (SIR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.93–1.04). Slightly more breast cancer cases were seen 434 than expected 387.69 (SIR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.02–1.23). A family history of breast cancer among a first degree relative was present in 1615 women. Forty-five breast cancers were seen among these women while 24.27 was expectecd (SIR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.35–2.48). Nulliparous women with a family history of breast cancer had a higher risk of breast cancer, SIR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.64–3.82, compared with nulliparous women without a family history, SIR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.99–1.29. Similarly women with parity 1–2 with a family history had a higher SIR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.16–2.69 compared with women without a family history having 1–2 children, SIR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.99–1.29. In women with 3 children those with a family history continued to have a high SIR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.11–3.27 compared with women without a family history SIR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.73–1.09. An early full-term pregnancy was protective in both groups. A higher risk than nulliparous women were seen after age 25 in the family history group and after age 30 in the sporadic cancer group. Interpretation. Women with a first degree family history of breast cancer do not experience the same protection from a high number of pregnancies as women without a family history. However, an early first full-term pregnancy seems to offer a substantial protection in the family history group if undertaken before age 20. This suggest that reproductive factors tend to operate differently in the two groups of women.     

Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry

Although several studies have found screen-detected cancers in women with familial breast cancer risk have favorable prognostic features compared with symptomatic cancers, the impact of level of familial risk is unknown. A cohort of 899 first-degree female relatives of cases of breast cancer from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry was followed for 2 years. Logistic regression analyses compared diagnoses of breast cancer or benign breast disease (BBD) between women at high (n = 258, 28.7 %) versus low/moderate (n = 641, 71.3 %) familial risk. Similar analyses compared prognostic features of invasive cancers and BBD by level of familial risk and mammography screening status. Among 899 women, 44 (4.9 %) were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma in situ, and 56 (6.2 %) with BBD. Women with high familial risk were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 2.84, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.50–5.38] than low/moderate risk women, particularly if diagnosed at age ≥50 (OR = 2.99, 95 % CI 1.37–6.56) or screened with mammography (OR = 3.33, 95 % CI 1.54–7.18). High risk women were more likely to be diagnosed with BBD (OR = 1.94, 95 % CI 1.03–3.66). Level of familial risk was not associated with prognostic features. Cancers among unscreened women were larger (OR = 9.72, 95 % CI 1.01–93.61) and diagnosed at stage II or above (OR = 7.80, 95 % CI 1.18–51.50) compared with screen-detected cancers. Screening mammography may be effective for women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, irrespective of level of familial risk.     

Influence of young age at diagnosis and family history of breast or ovarian cancer on breast cancer outcomes in a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to examine the association of: (i) diagnosis at age 相似文献   

A case–control study of lifetime occupational sitting and likelihood of breast cancer

Purpose

Sedentary behavior may be a unique risk factor for some cancers, including breast cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the association between lifetime occupational sitting and likelihood of breast cancer.

Methods

A case–control study of 2,452 women was conducted in Alberta, Canada, between 1995 and 1997. A comprehensive measure of lifetime physical activity assessed frequency and duration of sedentary jobs. Logistic regression estimated the odds of being diagnosed with breast cancer across quartiles of lifetime occupational sitting, by menopausal status and family history of breast cancer, and within body mass index categories and physical activity quartiles.

Results

There was no association between occupational sitting and breast cancer among pre-menopausal women and women with a family history of breast cancer. Unexpectedly, higher amounts of occupational sitting were associated with lower odds of breast cancer in post-menopausal women (top versus bottom categories of occupational sitting OR = 0.71, 95 % CI 0.52, 0.97), women without a family history of breast cancer (OR = 0.77, 95 % CI 0.60, 1.00), and women in the third highest quartile of total lifetime physical activity (OR = 0.57, 95 % CI 0.33, 0.97).

Conclusion

Occupational sitting levels were lower than would be expected in a contemporary study. Exposures may have been insufficient to make a determinable contribution to breast cancer risk.     

Associations among family history of cancer, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviors: a population-based study

Purpose

Some cancers are largely preventable through modification of certain behavioral risk factors and preventive screening, even among those with a family history of cancer. This study examined the associations between (1) family cancer history and cancer screening, (2) family history and cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors, and (3) cancer screening and lifestyle behaviors.

Methods

Data were from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey (n = 12,603). Outcomes included screening for breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) and six cancer preventive lifestyle behaviors, based on World Cancer Research Fund recommendations. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, stratified by gender and race–ethnicity, examined associations. Predicted probabilities of cancer screening by family cancer history, race–ethnicity, and sex were computed.

Results

Family history of site-specific cancer—CRC for men and women, and BC for women—was associated with higher probability of cancer screening for most groups, especially for CRC, but was largely unrelated to other lifestyle behaviors. In the few cases in which family history was significantly associated with lifestyle—for example, physical activity among White and Latino males, smoking among White and Asian females—individuals with a family history had lower odds of adherence to recommendations than those with no family history. Greater overall adherence to lifestyle recommendations was associated with higher odds of up-to-date CRC screening among White and Asian males, and lower odds among Asian females (no significant association with BC screening); this relationship did not vary by family cancer history.

Conclusion

The fact that family history of cancer is not associated with better lifestyle behaviors may reflect shared behavioral risks within families, or the lack of knowledge about how certain lifestyle behaviors impact personal cancer risk. Findings can inform interventions aimed at lifestyle behavioral modification for individuals at increased cancer risk due to family history.     

Family history of cancer and risk of breast cancer

The relationship between breast cancer risk and family history of cancer in first-degree relatives was investigated using data from a multicentric case-control study conducted in Italy between June 1991 and April 1994 on 2,569 women aged less than 75 years, with histologically confirmed incident breast cancer, and 2,588 control women admitted to hospital for acute, non-neoplastic, non-gynaecological conditions. Relative to women with no history, those with a family history of breast cancer had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9–3.0], and those with family history of intestinal cancer had an OR of 1.3 (95% CI 1.0–1.7). No significant relations emerged between breast cancer risk and family history of prostate (OR 1.1), ovarian (OR 1.3), cervical or endometrial (OR 1.2) or other cancers, except gallbladder (OR 8.6). The OR for family history of any type of cancer except breast cancer was 1.1. For family history of breast cancer the ORs were similar across strata of age of the proband, being 2.4 below age 45, 2.2 at age 45–59 and 2.7 above age 60, and whether the relative affected was the mother, sister(s) or both, while the risk appeared higher if the age at onset of breast cancer in the relative was lower than 40 years (OR 3.5), rather than higher (OR 2.2). Thus, our results, based on the investigation of all neoplasms in first-degree relatives, confirm that breast cancer risk is increased in women with a family history of breast cancer, while there was no material association with family history of cancer in general, excluding breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 72:735–738, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Prospective study of breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive families

Published studies have reached contradictory conclusions regarding breast cancer risk for women from families segregating a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who do not carry the family-specific mutation. Accurate estimation of breast cancer risk is crucial for appropriate counselling regarding risk management. The aim of this study is to prospectively assess whether breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is greater than for women in the general population. Eligible women were 722 first-, second- and third-degree relatives of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier from 224 mutation positive (128 BRCA1, 96 BRCA2) families, had no personal cancer history at baseline, and had been tested and found not to carry the family-specific mutation. Self-reported family history of cancer, preventive interventions and verified cancer diagnoses were collected at baseline, and every 3 years thereafter. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (range 0.1–12.4 years). Time at risk of breast cancer was censored at cancer diagnosis or risk-reducing surgery. Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated by comparing observed to population incidences of invasive breast cancer using Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality Books. Six cases of invasive breast cancer were observed. The estimated SIRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.51–2.53) overall (n = 722), 1.29 (95% CI: 0.58–2.88) when restricted to first- and second-degree relatives of an affected mutation carrier (n = 442) and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.12–1.93) when restricted to those with no family history of breast cancer in the non-mutation carrying parental lineage (n = 424). There was no evidence that mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are at increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this being the largest prospective cohort to assess this issue, moderately increased breast cancer risk (2-fold) cannot be ruled out.     

Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between mammography interval and breast cancer mortality among older women with breast cancer. The study population included 1,914 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 75 or later during their participation in the Women’s health initiative, with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (3.1 SD). Cause of death was based on medical record review. Mammography interval was defined as the time between the last self-reported mammogram 7 or more months prior to diagnosis, and the date of diagnosis. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were computed from Cox proportional hazards analyses. Prior mammograms were reported by 73.0 % of women from 7 months to ≤2 year of diagnosis (referent group), 19.4 % (>2 to <5 years), and 7.5 % (≥5 years or no prior mammogram). Women with the longest versus shortest intervals had more poorly differentiated (28.5 % vs. 22.7 %), advanced stage (25.7 % vs. 22.9 %), and estrogen receptor negative tumors (20.9 % vs. 13.1 %). Compared to the referent group, women with intervals of >2 to <5 years or ≥5 years had an increased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR 1.62, 95 % CI 1.03–2.54) and (HR 2.80, 95 % CI 1.57–5.00), respectively, p trend = 0.0002. There was no significant relationship between mammography interval and other causes of death. These results suggest a continued role for screening mammography among women 75 years of age and older.     

Bone mineral density and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women

Larger social networks have been associated with lower breast cancer mortality. The authors evaluated how levels of social support and burden influenced this association. We included 2,264 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study who were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive breast cancer between 1997 and 2000, and provided data on social networks (spouse or intimate partner, religious/social ties, volunteering, time socializing with friends, and number of first-degree female relatives), social support, and caregiving. 401 died during a median follow-up of 10.8 years follow-up with 215 from breast cancer. We used delayed entry Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate associations. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, social isolation was unrelated to recurrence or breast cancer-specific mortality. However, socially isolated women had higher all-cause mortality (HR = 1.34, 95 % CI: 1.03–1.73) and mortality from other causes (HR = 1.79, 95 % CI: 1.19–2.68). Levels of social support and burden modified associations. Among those with low, but not high, levels of social support from friends and family, lack of religious/social participation (HR = 1.58, 95 % CI: 1.07–2.36, p = 0.02, p interaction = 0.01) and lack of volunteering (HR = 1.78, 95 % CI: 1.15–2.77, p = 0.01, p interaction = 0.01) predicted higher all-cause mortality. In cross-classification analyses, only women with both small networks and low levels of support (HR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.10–2.38) had a significantly higher risk of mortality than women with large networks and high levels of support; women with small networks and high levels of support had no higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.13, 95 % CI: 0.74–1.72). Social networks were also more important for caregivers versus noncaregivers. Larger social networks predicted better prognosis after breast cancer, but associations depended on the quality and burden of family relationships.     

Factors associated with the incompliance with mammogram screening among individuals with a family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer

Objective The national guidelines recommend more intensive screening for breast cancer for women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Using the data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we examined factors related to the underuse of mammogram in this population. Method The study subjects were 1,215 women aged 30–79 who had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer in their first-degree relatives. According to the American Cancer Society’s guidelines for breast cancer screening, having no mammogram in last year was used as an outcome for this study. Socio-demographic characteristics, health-related conditions, lifestyle factors, health behaviors, menstrual/reproductive information and health care access and utilization were analyzed to assess their relations to mammogram underuse using unconditional logistic regression method. Results The results showed that younger age, having no place to go when sick (OR = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.2–4.0), having no visits to a general doctor (OR = 1.7, 95% CI, 1.2–2.4) or medical specialist (OR = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.6–3.1) and having no influenza shot in last year (OR = 1.7, 95% CI, 1.2–2.3) increased the risk of underusing mammography screening among women who had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Women who had no home care from health professionals in the last year were less likely to underuse mammogram with an OR of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.1–0.6), compared with women who had. Conclusion Medical care-related factors may affect the use of mammography screening in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the department of Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.