Facteurs de risques hormonaux et anthropométriques dans le cancer du sein de la femme : étude CECILE

Background: There is evidence that menopausal combined estrogen-progestagen therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, but the risk may vary depending on the types of progestagen used. Moreover, the role of progestagen-only therapy in breast cancer has been little studied. Because of French specificities in prescribing these treatments, we analyzed the risk of breast cancer based on these different types of hormone treatment prescribed among women in France.Overweight and obesity are associated with a reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer, but increase the risk in postmenopausal period. The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood, and questions remain about the role of weight gain in different periods of life.Methods: This work relates on data from a case-control study in the general population in France, including 1232 cases and 1317 controls recruited among women in two departments of Ille-et-Vilaine and Côte d'Or, between 2005 and 2007. Detailed information on hormonal treatments use, on weight at different periods of life and various reproductive and medical characteristics were obtained during a face-to-face interview. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals after adjustment for breast cancer risk factors were calculated using logistic regression models. Analyzes of BMI trajectories between the age of 20 and the age at diagnosis were performed.Results: The risk of breast cancer was increased in users of synthetic progestagen combined or not combined with an estrogen. This risk was restricted to the recent use of the hormone treatment and increased with the duration of use. Conversely, the natural progesterone based treatment was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.In premenopausal women, higher BMI and a previous weight gain were associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer. In postmenopausal women, only weight gain in the period preceding the menopause (40 to 50 years) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. This association was stronger among women who were lean women at the age of 20 (IMC≤ 18.5 kg / m²), or in older women.Conclusion: This study confirms the carcinogenic effects of hormonal treatments with synthetic progestagen, and the absence of deleterious effects of natural progesterone on breast cancer risk. However, the use of natural progesterone must be evaluated according to the benefits and risks that may result. We could also clarify the relationship between weight gain and the risk of breast cancer, and suggested that weight gain during the period before menopause could be more favorable to the occurrence of breast cancer in post-menopausal .Contexte : Il est établi que les traitements hormonaux de la ménopause à base d’estroprogestatifs augmentent le risque de cancer du sein, mais ce risque pourrait varier selon les types de progestatifs utilisés. Par ailleurs, le rôle des traitements à base de progestatifs seuls dans le cancer du sein a été peu étudié. Du fait des particularités françaises dans la prescription de ces traitements, nous avons analysé le risque de cancer du sein en fonction des types de traitement hormonaux prescrits chez les femmes en France.Le surpoids et l’obésité sont associés à une diminution du risque de cancer du sein en préménopause, mais augmentent le risque en période post-ménopausique. Les mécanismes sous-jacents ne sont pas complètement élucidés et des questions restent en suspens quant au rôle du gain de poids à différentes périodes de la vie. Méthodes : Ce travail porte sur les données d’une étude cas-témoins réalisée en population générale en France, incluant 1232 cas et 1317 témoins recrutés chez les femmes des deux départements d’Ille-et-Vilaine et de Côte d’Or, entre 2005 et 2007. Des informations détaillées sur l'utilisation des traitements hormonaux, sur le poids à différentes périodes de la vie et sur diverses caractéristiques reproductives et médicales ont été obtenues au cours d'entretiens en face-à-face. Les odds ratios et intervalles de confiance à 95% après ajustement sur les facteurs de risque du cancer du sein ont été calculés à l’aide de modèles de régression logistique. Des analyses de trajectoires d’indice de masse corporelle entre l’âge de 20 ans et l’âge au moment du diagnostic ont été pratiquées.Résultats : Le risque de cancer du sein était augmenté chez les utilisatrices de progestatifs de synthèse combinés ou non avec un estrogène. Ce risque était restreint à la prise récente du traitement hormonal et augmentait avec la durée d’utilisation. A l’inverse, les traitements à base de progestérone naturelle n’étaient pas associés à une augmentation du risque de cancer du sein. Chez les femmes non ménopausées, un IMC élevé et un gain de poids antérieur étaient associés à une diminution du risque de cancer du sein. Chez les femmes ménopausées, seul un gain de poids dans la période précédant la ménopause (entre 40 et 50 ans) était associé à une augmentation du risque de cancer du sein. Cette association était plus marquée chez les femmes maigres à 20 ans (IMC≤ 18,5 kg/m²), ou chez les femmes plus âgées. Conclusion : Ce travail confirme d’une part les effets cancérogènes des traitements hormonaux à base de progestatifs de synthèse, et d’autre part l’absence d’effet délétère de la progestérone naturelle sur le risque de cancer du sein. L’utilisation de progestérone naturelle doit toutefois être évaluée au regard des bénéfices et des risques qu’elle peut entraîner. Nous avons également pu préciser les relations existant entre le gain de poids et le risque de cancer du sein, et suggéré qu’un gain de poids pendant la période précédant la ménopause pouvait être plus favorable à la survenue de cancer du sein en post-ménopause

Immune disruptions and night shift work in hospital healthcare professionals : the intricate effects of social jet-lag and sleep debt

Objectives: We aimed to examine the effects of circadian and sleep rhythm disruptions on immune biomarkers among hospital healthcare professionals working night shifts and rotating day shifts. Methods: Hospital nurses working either as permanent night shifters (n=95) or as day shifters rotating between morning and afternoon shifts (n=96) kept a daily diary on their sleep and work schedules over a full working week. Blood samples were collected at the beginning and end of the last shift during the week, and participants were categorized into three groups based on work shift: morning shift (39 day shifters sampled at 7:00 and 14:00), afternoon shift (57 day shifters sampled at 14:00 and 21:00), and night shift (95 night shifters sampled at 21:00 and 7:00). Circulating blood counts in immune cells, interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein concentrations as well as total sleep time per 24 hours during work days (TST24w) and free days (TST24f), sleep debt (TST24f — TST24w) and social jet-lag (a behavioral proxy of circadian misalignment) were assessed. Results: Compared with day shifters, night shifters had shorter sleep duration (TST24w=5.4 ± 1.4h), greater sleep debt (3.2 ± 1.4 h) and social jet-lag (6.7 ± 2.4 h). Variations of immune biomarkers concentrations were consistent with the expected diurnal variations among day shifters (i.e., low level in the morning, increase during the day, peak value in the evening). By contrast, in night shifters, blood concentrations of total lymphocytes, T-helper cells, cytotoxic T-cells, memory B-cells and interleukin-6 were lower at 21:00, increased during the night, and reached higher values at 7:00. Multivariate analyses ruled out significant impact of TST24w, sleep debt, and social jet-lag on immune biomarkers concentrations among day shifters. In contrast, among night shifters, multivariate analyses indicated a combined effect of total sleep time (TST24w), sleep debt and social jet-lag for total lymphocytes and T-helper cells but only a social jet-lag effect for interleukin-6 and a single total sleep time effect for neutrophil and B-Cells. Conclusions: Altogether, our results point to intricate response patterns of immune rhythms to circadian misalignment and sleep debt in night shifters. Specifically, these altered pattern expressions of immune cells may increase vulnerability to infections and reduce vaccination efficiency in night workers

Genome-wide interaction analysis of menopausal hormone therapy use and breast cancer risk among 62,370 women

Use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is associated with increased risk for breast cancer. However, the relevant mechanisms and its interaction with genetic variants are not fully understood. We conducted a genome-wide interaction analysis between MHT use and genetic variants for breast cancer risk in 27,585 cases and 34,785 controls from 26 observational studies. All women were post-menopausal and of European ancestry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test for multiplicative interactions between genetic variants and current MHT use. We considered interaction p-values < 5 × 10–8 as genome-wide significant, and p-values < 1 × 10–5 as suggestive. Linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based clumping was performed to identify independent candidate variants. None of the 9.7 million genetic variants tested for interactions with MHT use reached genome-wide significance. Only 213 variants, representing 18 independent loci, had p-values < 1 × 105. The strongest evidence was found for rs4674019 (p-value = 2.27 × 10–7), which showed genome-wide significant interaction (p-value = 3.8 × 10–8) with current MHT use when analysis was restricted to population-based studies only. Limiting the analyses to combined estrogen–progesterone MHT use only or to estrogen receptor (ER) positive cases did not identify any genome-wide significant evidence of interactions. In this large genome-wide SNP-MHT interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for common genetic variants modifying the effect of MHT on breast cancer risk. These results suggest that common genetic variation has limited impact on the observed MHT–breast cancer risk association

Identification of new genetic susceptibility loci for breast cancer through consideration of gene-environment interactions

Genes that alter disease risk only in combination with certain environmental exposures may not be detected in genetic association analysis. By using methods accounting for gene-environment (G × E) interaction, we aimed to identify novel genetic loci associated with breast cancer risk. Up to 34,475 cases and 34,786 controls of European ancestry from up to 23 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium were included. Overall, 71,527 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), enriched for association with breast cancer, were tested for interaction with 10 environmental risk factors using three recently proposed hybrid methods and a joint test of association and interaction. Analyses were adjusted for age, study, population stratification, and confounding factors as applicable. Three SNPs in two independent loci showed statistically significant association: SNPs rs10483028 and rs2242714 in perfect linkage disequilibrium on chromosome 21 and rs12197388 in ARID1B on chromosome 6. While rs12197388 was identified using the joint test with parity and with age at menarche (P-values = 3 × 10(−07)), the variants on chromosome 21 q22.12, which showed interaction with adult body mass index (BMI) in 8,891 postmenopausal women, were identified by all methods applied. SNP rs10483028 was associated with breast cancer in women with a BMI below 25 kg/m(2) (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.38) but not in women with a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or higher (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.11, P for interaction = 3.2 × 10(−05)). Our findings confirm comparable power of the recent methods for detecting G × E interaction and the utility of using G × E interaction analyses to identify new susceptibility loci

Genome-wide association study of germline variants and breast cancer-specific mortality.

BackgroundWe examined the associations between germline variants and breast cancer mortality using a large meta-analysis of women of European ancestry.MethodsMeta-analyses included summary estimates based on Cox models of twelve datasets using ~10.4 million variants for 96,661 women with breast cancer and 7697 events (breast cancer-specific deaths). Oestrogen receptor (ER)-specific analyses were based on 64,171 ER-positive (4116) and 16,172 ER-negative (2125) patients. We evaluated the probability of a signal to be a true positive using the Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP).ResultsWe did not find any variant associated with breast cancer-specific mortality at P &lt; 5 × 10-8. For ER-positive disease, the most significantly associated variant was chr7:rs4717568 (BFDP = 7%, P = 1.28 × 10-7, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84-0.92); the closest gene is AUTS2. For ER-negative disease, the most significant variant was chr7:rs67918676 (BFDP = 11%, P = 1.38 × 10-7, HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16-1.39); located within a long intergenic non-coding RNA gene (AC004009.3), close to the HOXA gene cluster.ConclusionsWe uncovered germline variants on chromosome 7 at BFDP &lt; 15% close to genes for which there is biological evidence related to breast cancer outcome. However, the paucity of variants associated with mortality at genome-wide significance underpins the challenge in providing genetic-based individualised prognostic information for breast cancer patients

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.NovartisEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAbbViePfizer UKCelgeneEisaiGenentechMerck Sharp and DohmeRocheCancer Research UKGovernment of CanadaArray BioPharmaGenome CanadaNational Institutes of HealthEuropean CommissionMinistère de l'Économie, de l’Innovation et des Exportations du QuébecSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institutes of Health Researc

Comparison of 6q25 Breast Cancer Hits from Asian and European Genome Wide Association Studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC)

Peer reviewe

Genome-wide association study of germline variants and breast cancer-specific mortality

BACKGROUND: We examined the associations between germline variants and breast cancer mortality using a large meta-analysis of women of European ancestry. METHODS: Meta-analyses included summary estimates based on Cox models of twelve datasets using ~10

Hormonal and Anthropometric Factors in the Risk of Female Breast Cancer : CECILE Study

Contexte : Il est établi que les traitements hormonaux de la ménopause à base d’estroprogestatifs augmentent le risque de cancer du sein, mais ce risque pourrait varier selon les types de progestatifs utilisés. Par ailleurs, le rôle des traitements à base de progestatifs seuls dans le cancer du sein a été peu étudié. Du fait des particularités françaises dans la prescription de ces traitements, nous avons analysé le risque de cancer du sein en fonction des types de traitement hormonaux prescrits chez les femmes en France.Le surpoids et l’obésité sont associés à une diminution du risque de cancer du sein en préménopause, mais augmentent le risque en période post-ménopausique. Les mécanismes sous-jacents ne sont pas complètement élucidés et des questions restent en suspens quant au rôle du gain de poids à différentes périodes de la vie. Méthodes : Ce travail porte sur les données d’une étude cas-témoins réalisée en population générale en France, incluant 1232 cas et 1317 témoins recrutés chez les femmes des deux départements d’Ille-et-Vilaine et de Côte d’Or, entre 2005 et 2007. Des informations détaillées sur l'utilisation des traitements hormonaux, sur le poids à différentes périodes de la vie et sur diverses caractéristiques reproductives et médicales ont été obtenues au cours d'entretiens en face-à-face. Les odds ratios et intervalles de confiance à 95% après ajustement sur les facteurs de risque du cancer du sein ont été calculés à l’aide de modèles de régression logistique. Des analyses de trajectoires d’indice de masse corporelle entre l’âge de 20 ans et l’âge au moment du diagnostic ont été pratiquées.Résultats : Le risque de cancer du sein était augmenté chez les utilisatrices de progestatifs de synthèse combinés ou non avec un estrogène. Ce risque était restreint à la prise récente du traitement hormonal et augmentait avec la durée d’utilisation. A l’inverse, les traitements à base de progestérone naturelle n’étaient pas associés à une augmentation du risque de cancer du sein. Chez les femmes non ménopausées, un IMC élevé et un gain de poids antérieur étaient associés à une diminution du risque de cancer du sein. Chez les femmes ménopausées, seul un gain de poids dans la période précédant la ménopause (entre 40 et 50 ans) était associé à une augmentation du risque de cancer du sein. Cette association était plus marquée chez les femmes maigres à 20 ans (IMC≤ 18,5 kg/m²), ou chez les femmes plus âgées. Conclusion : Ce travail confirme d’une part les effets cancérogènes des traitements hormonaux à base de progestatifs de synthèse, et d’autre part l’absence d’effet délétère de la progestérone naturelle sur le risque de cancer du sein. L’utilisation de progestérone naturelle doit toutefois être évaluée au regard des bénéfices et des risques qu’elle peut entraîner. Nous avons également pu préciser les relations existant entre le gain de poids et le risque de cancer du sein, et suggéré qu’un gain de poids pendant la période précédant la ménopause pouvait être plus favorable à la survenue de cancer du sein en post-ménopause.Background: There is evidence that menopausal combined estrogen-progestagen therapy increases the risk of breast cancer, but the risk may vary depending on the types of progestagen used. Moreover, the role of progestagen-only therapy in breast cancer has been little studied. Because of French specificities in prescribing these treatments, we analyzed the risk of breast cancer based on these different types of hormone treatment prescribed among women in France.Overweight and obesity are associated with a reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer, but increase the risk in postmenopausal period. The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood, and questions remain about the role of weight gain in different periods of life.Methods: This work relates on data from a case-control study in the general population in France, including 1232 cases and 1317 controls recruited among women in two departments of Ille-et-Vilaine and Côte d'Or, between 2005 and 2007. Detailed information on hormonal treatments use, on weight at different periods of life and various reproductive and medical characteristics were obtained during a face-to-face interview. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals after adjustment for breast cancer risk factors were calculated using logistic regression models. Analyzes of BMI trajectories between the age of 20 and the age at diagnosis were performed.Results: The risk of breast cancer was increased in users of synthetic progestagen combined or not combined with an estrogen. This risk was restricted to the recent use of the hormone treatment and increased with the duration of use. Conversely, the natural progesterone based treatment was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.In premenopausal women, higher BMI and a previous weight gain were associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer. In postmenopausal women, only weight gain in the period preceding the menopause (40 to 50 years) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. This association was stronger among women who were lean women at the age of 20 (IMC≤ 18.5 kg / m²), or in older women.Conclusion: This study confirms the carcinogenic effects of hormonal treatments with synthetic progestagen, and the absence of deleterious effects of natural progesterone on breast cancer risk. However, the use of natural progesterone must be evaluated according to the benefits and risks that may result. We could also clarify the relationship between weight gain and the risk of breast cancer, and suggested that weight gain during the period before menopause could be more favorable to the occurrence of breast cancer in post-menopausal