Breast cancer risk and prevention in 2024: An overview from the Breast Cancer UK ‐ Breast Cancer Prevention Conference

The Breast Cancer UK—Breast Cancer Prevention Conference addressed risk from environmental pollutants and health behaviour‐related breast‐cancer risk. Epidemiological studies examining individual chemicals and breast cancer risk have produced inconclusive results including endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) Bisphenol A, per‐ and polyfluorinated alkyl substances as well as aluminium. However, laboratory studies have shown that multiple EDCs, can work together to exhibit effects, even when combined at levels that alone are ineffective. The TEXB‐α/β assay measures total estrogenic load, and studies have provided evidence of a link between multiple‐chemical exposures and breast cancer. However, prospective studies using TEXB‐α/β are needed to establish a causative link. There is also a need to assess real‐life exposure to environmental‐chemical mixtures during pregnancy, and their potential involvement in programming adverse foetal health outcomes in later life. Higher rates of breast cancer have occurred alongside increases in potentially‐modifiable risk factors such as obesity. Increasing body‐mass index is associated with increased risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer, but with decreased risk of premenopausal breast cancer. In contrast, lower rates of breast cancer in Asian compared to Western populations have been linked to soya/isoflavone consumption. Risk is decreased by breastfeeding, which is in addition to the decrease in risk observed for each birth and a young first‐birth. Risk is lower in those with higher levels of self‐reported physical activity. Current evidence suggests breast‐cancer survivors should also avoid weight gain, be physically active, and eat a healthy diet for overall health. A broad scientific perspective on breast cancer risk requires focus on both environmental exposure to chemicals and health behaviour‐related risk. Research into chemical exposure needs to focus on chemical mixtures and prospective epidemiological studies in order to test the effects on breast cancer risk. Behaviour‐related research needs to focus on implementation as well as deeper understanding of the mechanisms of cancer prevention

Recruitment to the “Breast—Activity and Healthy Eating After Diagnosis” (B-AHEAD) Randomized Controlled Trial

Excess weight at breast cancer diagnosis and weight gain during treatment are linked to increased breast cancer specific and all-cause mortality. The Breast—Activity and Healthy Eating After Diagnosis (B-AHEAD) trial tested 2 weight loss diet and exercise programmes versus a control receiving standard written advice during adjuvant treatment. This article identifies differences in characteristics between patients recruited from the main trial site to those of the whole population from that site during the recruitment period and identifies barriers to recruitment. A total of 409 patients with operable breast cancer were recruited within 12 weeks of surgery. We compared demographic and treatment factors between women recruited from the main trial coordinating site (n = 300) to the whole breast cancer population in the center (n = 532). Uptake at the coordinating site was 42%, comparable to treatment trials in the unit (47%). Women recruited were younger (55.9 vs 61.2 years, P < .001), more likely to live in least deprived postcode areas (41.7% vs 31.6%, P = .004), and more likely to have screen-detected cancers (55.3% vs 48.7%, P = .026) than the whole breast cancer population. The good uptake highlights the interest in lifestyle change around the time of diagnosis, a challenging time in the patient pathway, and shows that recruitment at this time is feasible. Barriers to uptake among older women and women with a lower socioeconomic status should be understood and overcome in order to improve recruitment to future lifestyle intervention programs

Utility of Self-Rated Adherence for Monitoring Dietary and Physical Activity Compliance and Assessment of Participant Feedback of the Healthy Diet and Lifestyle Study pilot.

We examined the utility of self-rated adherence to dietary and physical activity (PA) prescriptions as a method to monitor intervention compliance and facilitate goal setting during the Healthy Diet and Lifestyle Study (HDLS). In addition, we assessed participants’ feedback of HDLS. HDLS is a randomized pilot intervention that compared the effect of intermittent energy restriction combined with a Mediterranean diet (IER + MED) to a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, with matching PA regimens, for reducing visceral adipose tissue area (VAT)

Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis

BACKGROUND A gap analysis was conducted to determine which areas of breast cancer research, if targeted by researchers and funding bodies, could produce the greatest impact on patients. METHODS Fifty-six Breast Cancer Campaign grant holders and prominent UK breast cancer researchers participated in a gap analysis of current breast cancer research. Before, during and following the meeting, groups in seven key research areas participated in cycles of presentation, literature review and discussion. Summary papers were prepared by each group and collated into this position paper highlighting the research gaps, with recommendations for action. RESULTS Gaps were identified in all seven themes. General barriers to progress were lack of financial and practical resources, and poor collaboration between disciplines. Critical gaps in each theme included: (1) genetics (knowledge of genetic changes, their effects and interactions); (2) initiation of breast cancer (how developmental signalling pathways cause ductal elongation and branching at the cellular level and influence stem cell dynamics, and how their disruption initiates tumour formation); (3) progression of breast cancer (deciphering the intracellular and extracellular regulators of early progression, tumour growth, angiogenesis and metastasis); (4) therapies and targets (understanding who develops advanced disease); (5) disease markers (incorporating intelligent trial design into all studies to ensure new treatments are tested in patient groups stratified using biomarkers); (6) prevention (strategies to prevent oestrogen-receptor negative tumours and the long-term effects of chemoprevention for oestrogen-receptor positive tumours); (7) psychosocial aspects of cancer (the use of appropriate psychosocial interventions, and the personal impact of all stages of the disease among patients from a range of ethnic and demographic backgrounds). CONCLUSION Through recommendations to address these gaps with future research, the long-term benefits to patients will include: better estimation of risk in families with breast cancer and strategies to reduce risk; better prediction of drug response and patient prognosis; improved tailoring of treatments to patient subgroups and development of new therapeutic approaches; earlier initiation of treatment; more effective use of resources for screening populations; and an enhanced experience for people with or at risk of breast cancer and their families. The challenge to funding bodies and researchers in all disciplines is to focus on these gaps and to drive advances in knowledge into improvements in patient care

Intermittent energy restriction induces changes in breast gene expression and systemic metabolism

Background: Observational studies suggest weight loss and energy restriction reduce breast cancer risk. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) reduces weight to the same extent as, or more than equivalent continuous energy restriction (CER) but the effects of IER on normal breast tissue and systemic metabolism as indicators of breast cancer risk are unknown. Methods: We assessed the effect of IER (two days of 65 % energy restriction per week) for one menstrual cycle on breast tissue gene expression using Affymetrix GeneChips, adipocyte size by morphometry, and systemic metabolism (insulin resistance, lipids, serum and urine metabolites, lymphocyte gene expression) in 23 overweight premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer. Unsupervised and supervised analyses of matched pre and post IER biopsies in 20 subjects were performed, whilst liquid and gas chromatography mass spectrometry assessed corresponding changes in serum and urine metabolites in all subjects after the two restricted and five unrestricted days of the IER. Results: Women lost 4.8 % (±2.0 %) of body weight and 8.0 % (±5.0 %) of total body fat. Insulin resistance (homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)) reduced by 29.8 % (±17.8 %) on the restricted days and by 11 % (±34 %) on the unrestricted days of the IER. Five hundred and twenty-seven metabolites significantly increased or decreased during the two restricted days of IER. Ninety-one percent of these returned to baseline after 5 days of normal eating. Eleven subjects (55 %) displayed reductions in energy restriction-associated metabolic gene pathways including lipid synthesis, gluconeogenesis and glycogen synthesis. Some of these women also had increases in genes associated with breast epithelial cell differentiation (secretoglobulins, milk proteins and mucins) and decreased collagen synthesis (TNMD, PCOLCE2, TIMP4). There was no appreciable effect of IER on breast gene expression in the other nine subjects. These groups did not differ in the degree of changes in weight, total body fat, fat cell size or serum or urine metabolomic markers. Corresponding gene changes were not seen in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Conclusion: The transcriptional response to IER is variable in breast tissue, which was not reflected in the systemic response, which occurred in all subjects. The mechanisms of breast responsiveness/non-responsiveness require further investigation. Trial registration:ISRCTN7791648731/07/2012

The effectiveness of home versus community-based weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis: a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundBreast cancer diagnosis may be a teachable moment for lifestyle behaviour change and to prevent adjuvant therapy associated weight gain. We assessed the acceptability and effectiveness of two weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis to reduce weight amongst overweight or obese women and prevent gains in normal-weight women.MethodsOverweight or obese (n?=?243) and normal weight (n?=?166) women were randomised to a three-month unsupervised home (home), a supervised community weight control programme (community) or to standard written advice (control). Primary end points were change in weight and body fat at 12 months. Secondary end points included change in insulin, cardiovascular risk markers, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the programmes.ResultsForty-three percent of eligible women were recruited. Both programmes reduced weight and body fat: home vs. control mean (95% CI); weight ?2.3 (?3.5, ?1.0) kg, body fat ?1.6 (?2.6, ?0.7) kg, community vs. control; weight ?2.4 (?3.6, ?1.1) kg, body fat ?1.4 (?2.4, ?0.5) kg (all p?&#x3c;?0.001). The community group increased physical activity, reduced insulin, cardiovascular disease risk markers, increased QOL and was cost-effective.ConclusionsThe programmes were equally effective for weight control, but the community programme had additional benefits.Clinical trial registrationISRCTN6857614

Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort

This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal (references GA10-033 and GA13-006). This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant RP-PG-0707-10031). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors also acknowledge the support of Medical Research Council Health eResearch Centre grant MR/K006665/1

Can Communicating Personalised Disease Risk Promote Healthy Behaviour Change? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

$\textbf{BACKGROUND}$: The assessment and communication of disease risk that is personalised to the individual is widespread in healthcare contexts. Despite several systematic reviews of RCTs, it is unclear under what circumstances that personalised risk estimates promotes change in four key health-related behaviours: smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol consumption. $\textbf{PURPOSE}$: The present research aims to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise the findings of existing systematic reviews. $\textbf{METHODS}$: This systematic review of systematic reviews followed published guidance. A search of four databases and two-stage screening procedure with good reliability identified nine eligible systematic reviews. $\textbf{RESULTS}$: The nine reviews each included between three and 15 primary studies, containing 36 unique studies. Methods of personalising risk feedback included imaging/visual feedback, genetic testing, and numerical estimation from risk algorithms. The reviews were generally high quality. For a broad range of methods of estimating and communicating risk, the reviews found no evidence that risk information had strong or consistent effects on health-related behaviours. The most promising effects came from interventions using visual or imaging techniques and with smoking cessation and dietary behaviour as outcomes, but with inconsistent results. Few interventions explicitly used theory, few targeted self-efficacy or response efficacy, and a limited range of Behaviour Change Techniques were used. $\textbf{CONCLUSIONS}$: Presenting risk information on its own, even when highly personalised, does not produce strong effects on health-related behaviours or changes which are sustained. Future research in this area should build on the existing knowledge base about increasing the effects of risk communication on behaviour.The present research was funded partly by Research Capability Funding from NIHR CLAHRC Greater Manchester and the charity Prevent Breast Cancer