Frank, Ryan D.

Abstract Introduction: Current models to predict breast cancer risk do not differentiate risk for estrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative breast cancer (BC), despite growing evidence that these tumors are biologically very different. We hypothesized that women with ER+ BC cancers have different clinical risk factors and histologic findings on prior benign breast biopsies than those with ER- BC. Methods: After IRB approval, we examined associations of age at benign biopsy and histologic features of the benign biopsy with ER status of incident BCs within the Mayo Benign Breast Disease Cohort. Benign biopsy slides were reviewed for extent of lobular involution and degree of epithelial proliferation by a single breast pathologist blinded to BC events. Invasive BCs occurring within 15 years after benign biopsy were classified as ER+ if ER staining was >1%. BC case-only associations with ER status were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. Full-cohort hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for risk of ER-specific subtypes were estimated using Cox proportion hazards regression. Results: Among 13,410 women undergoing a benign breast biopsy from 1967-2001, 656 invasive BCs (459 ER+, 106 ER, 106 unknown) occurred within 15 years. Women who developed ER+ and ER- BCs were similar in age at the time of their prior benign breast biopsy (p=0.34). Although benign biopsies in women who later developed ER+ BC were more likely to show complete involution (23% vs 15% for ER- BC), this was not statistically significant (p=0.06). However, the degree of epithelial proliferation was significantly associated with ER status of later BCs (p=0.001), with ER+ BCs more likely than ER- BCs to have had a prior biopsy with atypical hyperplasia (16% vs 8%), and ER+ BCs less likely than ER- BCs to have had a prior biopsy with proliferative disease without atypia (33% vs 52%); this association remained after multivariate adjustment (p=0.003). We further pursued the association of epithelial proliferation with differential risk of ER+ and ER- BC in our overall cohort of 13,410 women (Table 1). Compared to women with non-proliferative disease, women with proliferative disease +/- atypia had ∼2-fold hazard ratios for ER- BC, whereas hazard ratios for ER+ BC were higher in women with atypical hyperplasia (∼4-fold) compared to proliferative disease. Hazard Ratio of ER+ and ER- BC within 15 years of BBD based upon degree of epithelial proliferation at benign biopsyCancer TypeGroupNN EventsHazard Ratio (95% CI)p-valueInvasive ER- ≤15 yearsNP8478421.00 (ref)<0.0001 PD4229542.63 (1.76, 3.93) AH70382.60 (1.22, 5.54) Invasive ER+ ≤15 yearsNP84782321.00 (ref)<0.0001 PD42291511.33 (1.09, 1.64) AH703744.41 (3.39, 5.73) NP=nonproliferative disease, PD=proliferative disease without atypia; AH=atypical hyperplasia Conclusion: ER+ and ER- breast cancers appear to have different features on prior benign breast biopsy, with atypical hyperplasia showing increased risk for both types of breast cancer, but a greater risk for ER+ tumors. Citation Format: Amy C Degnim, Derek C Radisky, Robert A Vierkant, Ryan D Frank, Marlene H Frost, Vernon S Pankratz, Celine M Vachon, Tanya L Hoskin, Julie M Cunningham, Chen Wang, Jean-Pierre Kocher, Teresa M Allers, Joanne L Johnson, Tina J Hieken, Karthik Ghosh, Lynn C Hartmann, Daniel W Visscher. Histologic features of benign breast biopsy tissue and association with ER positive and ER negative breast cancer in the Mayo BBD cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-06.

Purpose Optimal early detection and prevention for breast cancer depend on accurate identification of women at increased risk. We present a risk prediction model that incorporates histologic features of biopsy tissues from women with benign breast disease (BBD) and compare its performance to the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT). Methods We estimated the age-specific incidence of breast cancer and death from the Mayo BBD cohort and then combined these estimates with a relative risk model derived from 377 patient cases with breast cancer and 734 matched controls sampled from the Mayo BBD cohort to develop the BBD–to–breast cancer (BBD-BC) risk assessment tool. We validated the model using an independent set of 378 patient cases with breast cancer and 728 matched controls from the Mayo BBD cohort and compared the risk predictions from our model with those from the BCRAT. Results The BBD-BC model predicts the probability of breast cancer in women with BBD using tissue-based and other risk factors. The concordance statistic from the BBD-BC model was 0.665 in the model development series and 0.629 in the validation series; these values were higher than those from the BCRAT (0.567 and 0.472, respectively). The BCRAT significantly underpredicted breast cancer risk after benign biopsy (P = .004), whereas the BBD-BC predictions were appropriately calibrated to observed cancers (P = .247). Conclusion We developed a model using both demographic and histologic features to predict breast cancer risk in women with BBD. Our model more accurately classifies a woman's breast cancer risk after a benign biopsy than the BCRAT.

BACKGROUND Based on its cytologic features, and its co‐occurrence with atypical hyperplasia and breast cancer, flat epithelial atypia (FEA) has been proposed as a precursor lesion on the pathway to the development of breast cancer. It is often referred to as an “atypical” or high‐risk lesion. However, to the authors' knowledge, the long‐term risk of breast cancer in women with FEA is undefined. METHODS Specimens with FEA were identified among excisional breast biopsies in the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease Cohort, which includes 11,591 women who had benign biopsy findings at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota between 1967 and 2001. Breast cancer risk among subsets of patients with FEA and nonproliferative, proliferative, and atypical hyperplasia (AH) was assessed using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) compared with the Iowa Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. RESULTS FEA was identified in 282 women (2.4%); 130 had associated AH (46%) and 152 (54%) were classified as having proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA). With median follow‐up of 16.8 years, the SIR for breast cancer in patients with AH plus FEA was 4.74 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.17‐6.81) versus 4.23 (95% CI, 3.44‐5.13) for those with AH without FEA ( P = .59). The SIR for patients with PDWA plus FEA was 2.04 (95% CI, 1.23‐3.19) versus 1.90 (95% CI, 1.72‐2.09) for patients with PDWA without FEA ( P = .76). CONCLUSIONS FEA is an uncommon finding in women with benign breast disease. FEA does not appear to convey an independent risk of breast cancer beyond that of the associated PDWA or AH. Cancer 2015;121:1548–1555 . © 2015 American Cancer Society .

Abstract Background: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease for which the role of dietary factors remains inconclusive. The study objective was to evaluate risk of pancreatic cancer associated with meat preparation methods and meat-related mutagen consumption using a clinic-based case–control design. Methods: There were 384 cases and 983 controls; subjects provided demographic information and completed a 144-item food frequency questionnaire, which was used to estimate meat mutagen intake using the National Cancer Institute's CHARRED database (Bethesda, MD). Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for factors including age, sex, cigarette smoking, body mass index, and diabetes mellitus. Results: Overall, the findings were null with respect to meat mutagen intake and pancreatic cancer. Conclusions: The results do not support an association between well-done meat or meat-related mutagen intake and pancreatic cancer and contrast with generally increased risks reported in previous studies. Impact: These data contribute to evidence about pancreatic cancer and potentially carcinogenic compounds in meat. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(7); 1336–9. ©2013 AACR.