Back to Authors

Mesker, Wilma E.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5533-4778

Mayo Clinic

Leiden University Medical Center

Citations 4

Clarifying risk-factor associations with quantitative breast tumor features: a pooled analysis of 24 studies
Adams, Daniel , Hurson, Amber N. , Ahearn, Thomas U, Andrulis, Irene L, Antoniou, Antonis C, Auvinen, Päivi, Bane, Anita, González, Amy Berrington de , Bodelon, Clara, Bolla, Manjeet K. , Borrero, Maria , Brenner, Hermann, Brock, Ian W., Camp, Nicola J. , Cessna, Melissa H., Chanock, Stephen J, Chenevix-Trench, G, Copson, ER, Fh, Couch, Devilee, P, Easton, Douglas F, Eccles, Diana, Figueroa, Jonine D, Glendon, Gord, Hamann, U, Hartman, Mikael, Heemskerk-Gerritsen, Bernadette A M, Hodge, James M, Holleczek, Bernd, Hollestelle, A M, Mj, Hooning, Investigators, kConFab, Amor, David, Andrews, Lesley , Antill, Y , Rl, Balleine, Beesley, Jonathan, Bennett, Ian, Bogwitz, Michael, Bodek, Simon, Botes, Leon, Brennan, Meagan, Brown, Melissa, Buckley, Michael, Caldon, Liz, Campbell, Ian, Chakrabarti, Anannya , Chauhan, Deepa, Chauhan, Manisha, Christian, Alice, Cohen, Paul, Colley, Alison, Cui, James, Courtney, Eliza, Cummings, Margaret, Delatycki, Martin, Dickson, Rebecca, Dixon, Joanne, Duijf, Pascal, Edwards, Stacey, Farshid, Gelareh , Fellows, AM, Fenton, Georgina, Field, Michael, Flanagan, James, Fong, Peter, Forrest, Laura, Fox, Stephen, French, Juliet , Friedlander, Michael, Gattas, Mike, George, Peter, Greening, Sian, Harris, Marion, Harraka, Philip, Hayward, Nick, Hoskins, Cass , Hunt, Clare, James, Paul, Jenkins, Mark, Kidd, Alexa, Koehler, Jessica, Kollias, J, Lakhani, Sunil, Lawrence, Mitchell, Lee, Jason , Li, Shuai, Lindeman, Geoff, Lippey, Jocelyn, Lipton, Lara, Loi, Sherene, Mann, Graham, Marsh, Deborah, McLachlan, Sue Anne, Reed, Amy McCart, Milne, Roger, Nightingale, Sophie , O’Connell, Shona, O’Sullivan, Sarah, Reilly, Robert O', Ortega, David Gallego, Pachter, Nick, Pang, Jia-Min, Pathak, Gargi, Patterson, Briony, Phillips, Kelly, Pieper, Ellen, Ramus, Susan, Rickard, Edwina, Ragunathan, Abi, Robinson, Bridget, Skandarajah, Anita, Salisbury, Elizabeth, Saunders, Christobel, Saunus, Jodi, Scott, Rodney, Scott, Clare, Sexton, Adrienne, Shaw, Joanne, Shelling, Andrew, Srinivasa, Shweta , Simpson, Peter, Mc, Southey, Spurdle, Amanda, Taylor, Jessica, Taylor, Renea, Thorne, Heather, Trainer, A H, Tucker, Kathy , Visvader, Jane, Walker, Logan, Williams, Rachael, Winship, I, Young, Mary Ann, Zaheed, Milita , Investigators, S On Behalf Of The Chlovis Study, Tan, Veronique Kiak Mien , Lim, Geok Hoon, Tan, Ern Yu , Tan, Su-Ming, Iau, Philip Tsau Choong , Jakubowska, A, Jones, Michael E. , Jones, Louise , Jones, Brandt, Jung, Audrey, Kaaks, Rudolf, Keeman, Renske , Lawrence, Scott, Li, J M, Lubiński, J, Mannermaa, Arto, Manoochehri, Mehdi, Martens, John W M, Mesker, Wilma E, Muhammad, Noor , Obi, Nadia, Olson, Janet E, Patel, Alpa V, Prajzendanc, Karolina , Ruddy, Kathryn J, Safizadeh, Fatemeh , Schöttker, Ben, Tengström, Maria , Le, Teras, Timmermans, M, Tollenaar, RA, Vachon, Celine M, Wang, Q, Yang, Xiaohong R, Zamora, M Pilar, Chang-Claude, Jenny, Schmidt, M K, Pharoah, Paul D P, Abubakar, Mustapha, Eccles, Diana , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Eccles, Diana , Jones, Michael E , Jones, J. Louise , Berrington de Gonzalez, Amy , Antoniou, Antonis C. , Bane, Anita, Behrens, Sabine , Białkowska, Katarzyna , Bodelón, Clara , Brenner, Hermann , Broeks, Annegien , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Copson, Ellen , Couch, Fergus J, Cox, Angela , Cross, Simon S. , Devilee, Peter , Dunning, Alison M. , Easton, Douglas F. , Figueroa, Jonine D. , Glendon, Gord, González‐Neira, Anna , Hartikainen, Jaana M. , Hartman, Mikael , Heemskerk‐Gerritsen, Bernadette A. M. , Ho, Peh Joo , Hodge, James M. , Holleczek, Bernd , Hollestelle, Antoinette , Hooning, Maartje J. , Investigators, kConFab, Balleine, Rosemary L. , Bennett, Ian, Bogwitz, Michael R. , Bodek, Simon , Botes, Leon P., Buckley, Michael , Cohen, Paul A. , Crook, Ashley , Courtney, Eliza , Dawson, Sarah‐Jane , DeFazio, Anna , Delatycki, Martin B. , Duijf, Pascal H. G. , Fellows, Andrew, Fenton, Georgina L. , Flanagan, James M. , Forrest, Laura Elenor , Friedländer, Michael , Harraka, Philip A. , Kidd, Alexa, Kollias, James, Lakhani, Sunil R. , Lawrence, Mitchell, Lindeman, Geoffrey J. , Lippey, Jocelyn , Loi, Sherene , Reed, Amy E. McCart , Milne, Roger L , Gallego‐Ortega, David , Pathak, Gargi, Pearn, Amy , Robinson, Bridget A. , Skandarajah, Anita Rohini , Salisbury, Elizabeth, Saunders, Christobel , Saunus, Jodi M. , Savas, Peter Stephen , Sexton, Adrienne , Shelling, Andrew Neil , Simpson, Peter, Spurdle, Amanda B. , Visvader, Jane E. , Williams, Rachael, Tan, Bien‐Keem , Lim, Geok Hoon , Kaaks, Rudolf , Lawrence, Scott M. , Lissowska, Jolanta , Mannermaa, Arto , Manoochehri, Mehdi, Mesker, Wilma E. , Mulligan, Anna Marie , Obi, Nadia , Olson, Janet E. , Osório, Ana , Ottewell, Penelope Dawn , Patel, Alpa V , Pita, Guillermo , Rashid, Muhammad Usman , Ruddy, Kathryn J. , Schöttker, Ben , Seibold, Petra , Tapper, William , Teras, Lauren R , Timmermans, Mieke, Vachon, Celine M. , Wesseling, Jelle , Yadav, Siddhartha , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Abubakar, Mustapha , García‐Closas, Montserrat

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | July 18, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1093/jnci/djag244 Get It

Abstract Background Breast cancer is etiologically heterogeneous, but which risk factors differ in their associations across tumor subtypes remains unclear. We conducted a large, pooled analysis to evaluate independent, dose-response associations between breast cancer risk factors and quantitative tumor features. Methods Analyses of 15,731 invasive breast cancers from 24 studies evaluated associations (p-trend) between reproductive and hormonal factors, body mass index (BMI), alcohol, smoking, and family history in relation to quantitative immunohistochemistry measures on tissue microarrays (ER, PR, HER2, KI67, TP53) and tumor grade. Analyses in a subset of 10 population-based studies estimated subtype-specific odds ratios (ORs) comparing cases to controls. A Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) <0.2 was used to identify associations with strong statistical evidence. Results Nulliparity and later age at menopause were associated with higher ER-positivity (p-trend=0.021 and 0.001, respectively), with corresponding OR[ER+] (95% CI) = 1.49 (1.16-1.90) for nulliparous vs. parous and 1.07 (1.03-1.11) per 5 years. Current combined menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use was associated with lower grade (p-trend<0.001), with OR [grade1] = 3.37 (2.69-4.21) for current vs. never users. Higher BMI was associated with lower ER-positivity and higher grade in premenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[ER+] = 0.80 (0.74-0.87) and OR[grade1] = 0.75 (0.63-0.88) per 5 units, and with higher PR-positivity and higher grade in postmenopausal women (p-trend<0.001 and <0.001), with OR[PR+] = 1.08 (1.03-1.14) and OR[grade 3] = 1.10 (1.04-1.17) per 5 units. Conclusion This pooled analysis of 15,731 cases showed that nulliparity, age at menopause, MHT, and BMI have independent, dose-response associations with ER, PR, and grade, clarifying patterns of etiologic heterogeneity. Associations with HER2, KI67 and TP53, or other risk factors did not meet our threshold for strong evidence.
Protein N-Glycosylation Traits Combined With CA19-9 Accurately Distinguish Pancreatic Cancer Cases From Healthy Controls and Benign Pancreatic Diseases
Bogdański, Aleksander , Ballieux, Bart E.P.B. , Mesker, Wilma E. , Bi, Yan , Burgt, Yuri E. M. van der , Bogdanski, Aleksander M , Klatte, Derk C.F. , Leerdam, Monique E. van , Cobbaert, Christa M. , Hooft, Jeanin E. van , Clift, Kristin , Wuhrer, Manfred , Wallace, Michael B.

Pancreas | May 22, 2025 | Volume: 54 | Issue: 9 | Pages: e823-e830

10.1097/mpa.0000000000002517 Get It

Objectives: New methods are needed to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) earlier to improve outcomes. We previously reported that a panel of protein N-glycosylation traits (NGTs) discriminated PDAC from healthy controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81–0.88. However, it remained unclear whether this panel accurately differentiates PDAC from other benign pancreatic disorders. Our study aims to evaluate the performance of the NGT panel in combination with CA19-9 in a diverse cohort, including PDAC cases, healthy controls, and controls with benign pancreatic disorders. Methods: Protein N-glycosylation profiles were determined in plasma samples using an in-house developed mass spectrometry assay. CA19-9 levels were measured using a routine immunoassay test. Results of total plasma NGTs and CA19-9 were evaluated separately as well as in combination. Logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs), AUC, sensitivity, and specificity to determine the performance of NGTs and CA19-9 in distinguishing PDAC from controls. Results: In total, 221 individuals were included: 45 (20.4%) with PDAC, and 176 (79.6%) controls (53 healthy and 123 with benign pancreatic disease). The AUC for differentiating PDAC from the total control cohort based on the combination of the NGT panel and CA19-9 was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.97), with a sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78–0.98) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81–0.91). Comparison of PDAC cases with healthy controls only resulted in an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–0.99), with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73–0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94–1.00). Conclusions: Both plasma NGTs and CA19-9 distinguish PDAC from a diverse control cohort. The accuracy further improves when these readouts are combined, showing promise for future early detection methods.
Performance of automated scoring of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6 and EGFR in breast cancer tissue microarrays in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium
Howat, William , Blows, Fiona M., Provenzano, Elena , Brook, Mark N. , Morris, Lorna , Gazińska, Patrycja , Johnson, Nicola, McDuffus, Leigh‐Anne, Miller, Jodi L. , Sawyer, Elinor J. , Pinder, Sarah E. , Deurzen, Carolien H. M. van , Sironen, Reijo , Visscher, Daniel W., Caldas, Carlos , Daley, Frances , Coulson, Penny , Sanders, Joyce , Wesseling, Jelle , Fagerholm, Rainer, Blomqvist, Carl , Ali, H. Raza , Dawson, Sarah‐Jane , Figueroa, Jonine D. , Lissowska, Jolanta , Brinton, Louise A. , Mannermaa, Arto, Kataja, Vesa , Kosma, Veli‐Matti , Brock, Ian W., Reed, Malcolm , Devillee, Peter, Mesker, Wilma E. , Seyaneve, Caroline M, Menéndez, Primitiva, Bolla, Manjeet K. , Easton, Douglas F. , Schmidt, Marjanka K. , Pharoah, Paul D.P., Sherman, Mark E., García‐Closas, Montserrat , Visscher, Daniel, Jones, J. Louise , Broeks, Annegien , Nevanlinna, Heli , Heikkilä, Päivi , Mannermaa, Arto, Cox, Angela , Cross, Simon S. , Couch, Fergus J. , Olson, Janet E. , Hollestelle, Antoinette , Benı́tez, Javier , Pérez, José Ignacio Arias , Lissowska, Jolanta , Caldas, Carlos , García-Closas, Montserrat , Schmidt, Marjanka K , Figueroa, Jonine D , Sawyer, Elinor J

The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research | December 4, 2014 | Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 18-32

10.1002/cjp2.3 Get It

AbstractBreast cancer risk factors and clinical outcomes vary by tumour marker expression. However, individual studies often lack the power required to assess these relationships, and large‐scale analyses are limited by the need for high throughput, standardized scoring methods. To address these limitations, we assessed whether automated image analysis of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays can permit rapid, standardized scoring of tumour markers from multiple studies. Tissue microarray sections prepared in nine studies containing 20 263 cores from 8267 breast cancers stained for two nuclear (oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor), two membranous (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor) and one cytoplasmic (cytokeratin 5/6) marker were scanned as digital images. Automated algorithms were used to score markers in tumour cells using the Ariol system. We compared automated scores against visual reads, and their associations with breast cancer survival. Approximately 65–70% of tissue microarray cores were satisfactory for scoring. Among satisfactory cores, agreement between dichotomous automated and visual scores was highest for oestrogen receptor (Kappa = 0.76), followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Kappa = 0.69) and progesterone receptor (Kappa = 0.67). Automated quantitative scores for these markers were associated with hazard ratios for breast cancer mortality in a dose‐response manner. Considering visual scores of epidermal growth factor receptor or cytokeratin 5/6 as the reference, automated scoring achieved excellent negative predictive value (96–98%), but yielded many false positives (positive predictive value = 30–32%). For all markers, we observed substantial heterogeneity in automated scoring performance across tissue microarrays. Automated analysis is a potentially useful tool for large‐scale, quantitative scoring of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays available in consortia. However, continued optimization, rigorous marker‐specific quality control measures and standardization of tissue microarray designs, staining and scoring protocols is needed to enhance results.