Prevalence of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in India: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose There is considerable variation in prevalence rates of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) reported by various studies from India. We performed a systematic review and literature-based meta-analysis of these studies. Methods We searched databases of Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies that reported on the prevalence of TNBC in India that were published between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2015. We extracted relevant information from each study by using a standardized form. We pooled study-specific estimates by using random-effects meta-analysis to provide summary estimates. We explored sources of heterogeneity by using subgroup analyses and metaregression. Results Data were obtained from 17 studies that involved 7,237 patients with breast cancer. Overall combined prevalence of TNBC was 31% (95% CI, 27% to 35%). There was substantial heterogeneity across the studies (I2 of 91% [95% CI, 88% to 94%]; P \u3c .001) that was not explained by available study level characteristics, including study location, definition of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 or estrogen receptor, mean age of participants, proportion of patients with premenopausal cancer, grade 3 disease, or tumor size \u3e 5 cm. Overall combined prevalence of hormone receptor–positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer was 48% (95% CI, 42% to 54%) and 27% (95% CI, 24% to 31%), respectively. There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion Prevalence of TNBC in India is considerably higher compared with that seen in Western populations. As many as as one in three women with breast cancer could have triple-negative disease. This finding has significant clinical relevance as it may contribute to poor outcomes in patients with breast cancer in India. Additional research is needed to understand the determinants of TNBC in India

Effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in patients with diabetes:an analysis from the Collaborative Atorvastatin in Diabetes Trial (CARDS)

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In an individual-level analysis we examined the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in type 2 diabetes and whether glycaemia effects reduce the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with atorvastatin. METHODS: The study population comprised 2,739 people taking part in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) who were randomised to receive atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo and who had post-randomisation HbA(1c) data. This secondary analysis used Cox regression to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression, defined as an increase in HbA(1c) of ≥0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) or intensification of diabetes therapy. Mixed models were used to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on HbA(1c) as a continuous endpoint. RESULTS: Glycaemia progression occurred in 73.6% of participants allocated placebo and 78.1% of those allocated atorvastatin (HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.08, 1.29], p < 0.001) by the end of follow-up. The HR was 1.22 (95% CI 1.19, 1.35) in men and 1.11 (95% CI 0.95, 1.29) in women (p = 0.098 for the sex interaction). A similar effect was seen in on-treatment analyses: HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.07, 1.35), p = 0.001. The net mean treatment effect on HbA(1c) was 0.14% (95% CI 0.08, 0.21) (1.5 mmol/mol). The effect did not increase through time. Diabetes treatment intensification alone did not differ with statin allocation. Neither baseline nor 1-year-attained HbA(1c) predicted subsequent CVD, and the atorvastatin effect on CVD did not vary by HbA(1c) change (interaction p value 0.229). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The effect of atorvastatin 10 mg on glycaemia progression among those with diabetes is statistically significant but very small, is not significantly different between sexes, does not increase with duration of statin and does not have an impact on the magnitude of CVD risk reduction with atorvastatin. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3802-6) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users

The association between blood glucose and oxidized lipoprotein(a) in healthy young women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oxidized lipoproteins play important roles in the atherosclerotic processes. Oxidized lipoprotein(a) (oxLp(a)) may be more potent in atherosclerotic pathophysiology than native Lp(a), a cardiovascular disease-relevant lipoprotein. Increased blood glucose concentrations can induce oxidative modification of lipoproteins. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between circulating oxLp(a) and cardiometabolic variables including blood glucose in healthy volunteers within the normal range of blood glucose.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Several cardiometabolic variables and serum oxLp(a) (using an ELISA system) were measured among 70 healthy females (mean age, 22 years).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Lp(a) and glucose were significantly and positively correlated with oxLp(a) in simple correlation test. Furthermore, a multiple linear regression analysis showed oxLp(a) to have a weakly, but significantly positive and independent correlation with only blood glucose (<it>β </it>= 0.269, <it>P </it>< 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These results suggest that increased glucose may enhance the oxidization of Lp(a) even at normal glucose levels.</p

Association between the Interleukin-6 Promoter Polymorphism −174G/C and Serum Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations in Humans

Background: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist tocilizumab has been shown to lower serum Lp(a) concentrations. We investigated whether the IL-6 single nucleotide polymorphism 2174G/C is associated with baseline serum Lp(a) concentrations. Methodology/Principal Findings: We divided 2321 subjects from the Lipid Analytic Cologne (LIANCO) cohort into 2 groups, the ones with substantially elevated Lp(a), defined as concentrations $60 mg/dl (n = 510), and the ones with Lp(a),60 mg/ dl (n = 1811). The association with the genotypes GG (33.7%), GC (50.75%) and CC (15.55%) was investigated. The GC and the CC genotype were associated with a significantly increased odds ratio of having substantially elevated Lp(a) concentrations (OR = 1.3, 95 % CI 1.04 to 1.63, P = 0.02 and OR = 1.44, 95 % CI 1.06 to 1.93, P = 0.018). These associations remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, smoking behavior, body mass index, serum lipoproteins, hypertension and diabetes. Of these covariates, only LDL cholesterol was significantly and independently associated with elevated Lp(a) concentrations. Conclusions/Significance: The IL-6 single nucleotide polymorphism 2174G/C is associated with increased odds of having elevated Lp(a). Whether this association plays a role in the Lp(a)-lowering effects of IL-6 receptor antagonists remains to b

Low Lipoprotein(a) Concentration Is Associated with Cancer and All-Cause Deaths: A Population-Based Cohort Study (The JMS Cohort Study)

Background: Experimental studies support the anti-neoplastic effect of apo(a), but several clinical studies have reported contradictory results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration is related to mortality from major causes of death, especially cancer. Methods The subjects were 10,413 participants (4,005 men and 6,408 women) from a multi-center population-based cohort study in Japan (The Jichi Medical School cohort study). The average age at registration was 55.0 years, and the median observation period was 4,559 days. As the estimated hazard ratio was high for both the low and very high Lp(a) levels, we defined two Lp(a) groups: a low Lp(a) group [Lp(a)<80 mg/L] and an intermediate-to-high Lp(a) group [Lp(a)≥80]. Participants who died from malignant neoplasms (n = 316), cardiovascular disease (202), or other causes (312) during the observation period were examined. Results: Cumulative incidence plots showed higher cumulative death rates for the low Lp(a) group than for the intermediate-to-high Lp(a) group for all-cause, cancer, and miscellaneous-cause deaths (p<0.001, p = 0.03, and p = 0.03, respectively). Cox proportional hazards analyses with the sex and age of the participants, body mass index, and smoking and drinking histories as covariates showed that a low Lp(a) level was a significant risk for all-cause, cancer, and miscellaneous-cause deaths (p<0.001, p = 0.003, and p = 0.01, respectively). The hazard ratio (95% CI) [1.48, 1.15–1.92] of a low Lp(a) level for cancer deaths was almost the same as that for a male sex (1.46, 1.00–2.13). Conclusions: This is the first report to describe the association between a low Lp(a) level and all-cause or cancer death, supporting the anti-neoplastic effect of Lp(a). Further epidemiological studies are needed to confirm the present results