breast cancer risk
Recently Published Documents





BMC Cancer ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Linda Rainey ◽  
Daniëlle van der Waal ◽  
Louise S. Donnelly ◽  
Jake Southworth ◽  
David P. French ◽  

Abstract Background The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5–4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women’s uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women’s organisational preferences regarding tailored screening. Methods A total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics. Results Self-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women’s organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward. Conclusions Breast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening.

2022 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Sarah Pirikahu ◽  
Helen Lund ◽  
Gemma Cadby ◽  
Elizabeth Wylie ◽  
Jennifer Stone

Abstract Background High participation in mammographic screening is essential for its effectiveness to detect breast cancers early and thereby, improve breast cancer outcomes. Breast density is a strong predictor of breast cancer risk and significantly reduces the sensitivity of mammography to detect the disease. There are increasing mandates for routine breast density notification within mammographic screening programs. It is unknown if breast density notification impacts the likelihood of women returning to screening when next due (i.e. rescreening rates). This study investigates the association between breast density notification and rescreening rates using individual-level data from BreastScreen Western Australia (WA), a population-based mammographic screening program. Methods We examined 981,705 screening events from 311,656 women aged 40+ who attended BreastScreen WA between 2008 and 2017. Mixed effect logistic regression was used to investigate the association between rescreening and breast density notification status. Results Results were stratified by age (younger, targeted, older) and screening round (first, second, third+). Targeted women screening for the first time were more likely to return to screening if notified as having dense breasts (Percentunadjusted notified vs. not-notified: 57.8% vs. 56.1%; Padjusted = 0.016). Younger women were less likely to rescreen if notified, regardless of screening round (all P < 0.001). There was no association between notification and rescreening in older women (all P > 0.72). Conclusions Breast density notification does not deter women in the targeted age range from rescreening but could potentially deter younger women from rescreening. These results suggest that all breast density notification messaging should include information regarding the importance of regular mammographic screening to manage breast cancer risk, particularly for younger women. These results will directly inform BreastScreen programs in Australia as well as other population-based screening providers outside Australia who notify women about breast density or are considering implementing breast density notification.

Toxics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Tatiana Kalinina ◽  
Vladislav Kononchuk ◽  
Lyubov Klyushova ◽  
Lyudmila Gulyaeva

Many studies have shown that dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) exposure raises breast cancer risk. Another insecticide with similar properties is endosulfan, which has been actively used in agriculture after DDT prohibition. Previously, we have identified some estradiol-, progesterone-, and testosterone-sensitive microRNAs (miRNAs, miRs). Because DDT and endosulfan have estrogenic, antiandrogenic, and antiprogesterone properties, we hypothesized that these miRNAs are affected by the insecticides. We quantified relative levels of miRNAs and expression levels of their target genes in breast cancer MCF-7 cells treated with p,p′-DDT, o,p′-DDT, or endosulfan. We also quantified miR-19b expression, which, as previously shown, is regulated by estrogen. Here, we observed that miR-19b expression increased in response not only to estradiol but also to testosterone and progesterone. Treatment of MCF-7 cells with p,p′-DDT or endosulfan decreased the protein levels of apoptosis regulators TP53INP1 and APAF1. In cells treated with o,p′-DDT, the TP53INP1 amount decreased after 24 h of incubation, but increased after 48 h of incubation with insecticide. OXTR expression, which is known to be associated with breast carcinogenesis, significantly diminished under the exposure of all insecticides. In cells treated with p,p′-DDT or o,p′-DDT, the observed changes were accompanied by alterations of the levels of hormone-responsive miRNAs: miR-324, miR-190a, miR-190b, miR-27a, miR-193b, and miR-19b.

Lusine Yaghjyan ◽  
Lancia N. F. Darville ◽  
Jayden Cline ◽  
Yessica C. Martinez ◽  
Shannan Rich ◽  

2022 ◽  
Meera Sangaramoorthy ◽  
Joseph Gibbons ◽  
Juan Yang ◽  
Katherine Lin ◽  
Yuqing Li ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 107028
Allyson M. Gregoire ◽  
Trang VoPham ◽  
Francine Laden ◽  
Rina Yarosh ◽  
Katie M. O'Brien ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document