Open Access

Adiposity, inflammation, genetic variants and risk of post-menopausal breast cancer findings from a prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) design approach

  • Xiaowei Sherry Yan1,
  • Jill Barnholtz-Sloan2,
  • Xin Chu3,
  • Ling Li3,
  • Ryan Colonie3,
  • Jessica Webster3,
  • Diane Smelser3,
  • Nikitaban Patel1,
  • Jeffery Prichard4 and
  • Azadeh Stark1, 5, 6Email author
SpringerPlus20132:638

DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-638

Received: 11 November 2013

Accepted: 12 November 2013

Published: 27 November 2013

Abstract

Chronic internal inflammation secondary to adiposity is a risk factor for sporadic breast cancer and Post-Menopausal Breast Cancer (PMBC) is largely defined as such. Adiposity is one of the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and is a risk factor for PMBC. We examined SNPs of eight genes implicated in adiposity, inflammation and cell proliferation in a Prospective-specimen-collection, Retrospective-Blinded-Evaluation (PRoBE) design approach. A total of 180 cases and 732 age-matched controls were identified from the MyCode prospective biobank database and then linked to the Clinical Decision Information System, an enterprise-wide data warehouse, to retrieve clinico-demographic data. Samples were analyzed in a core laboratory where the personnel were masked to their status. Results from multivariate logistic regression yielded one SNP (rs2922126) in the GHSR as protective against PMBC among homozygotes for the minor allele (A/A) (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-.89, P-value = .02); homozygosity for the minor allele (C/C) of the SNP (rs889312) of the gene MAP3K1 was associated with the risk of PMBC (OR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.25-4.63 P-value = .008). Advanced age was protective against PMBC (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P-value = .02). Family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.14-4.43. P = .02), HRT (OR = 3.35; 95% CI 2.15-5.21, P < .001), and MetS (OR = 14.83, 95% CI 5.63-39.08, P < .001) and interaction between HRT and MetS (OR = 39.38, 95% CI 15.71-98.70, P < .001) were associated with the risk of PMBC. We did not detected significant interactions between SNPs or between the SNPs and the clinico-demographic risk factors. Our study further confirms that MetS increases the risk of PMBC and argues in favor of reducing exposure to HRT. Our findings are another confirmation that low penetrance genes involved in the inflammatory pathway, i.e. MAP3KI gene, may have a plausible causative role in PMBC. Given the fact that genetic constitutionality of individuals cannot be changed, efforts should be focused on life style modification.

Keywords

Metabolic syndrome Post-menopausal breast cancer Chronic inflammation MAP3K1

Background

Post-menopausal breast cancer (PMBC) is largely defined as a sporadic disease, as most women diagnosed with PMBC do not have a first degree family history of breast cancer. Of all identified modifiable risk factors for PMBC, adiposity has been known to have the strongest (Risk ratio = 1.67) and the largest population attributable risk (>20%) (Sprague et al. 2008). Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ is metabolically active and is involved in several biochemical pathways; the association between adiposity and PMBC most likely is not limited to one pathway or biochemical mechanism, per se (Galic et al. 2010). In post-menopausal women, peripheral adipose tissue is the primary source of circulating estrogens which are synthesized from its androgen precursors (Carmichael 2006; Gruber et al. 2002). Extensive epidemiologic and clinical correlative studies support that post-menopausal adiposity is associated with elevated circulating levels of estradiol and estrone and the risk of hormone positive breast cancer (Missmer et al. 2004; Cummings et al. 2009; McPherson et al. 2000). Furthermore, chronic internal inflammation secondary to adiposity has been associated with the risk of PMBC (Aghamohammadzaeh and Heagerty 2012; Cowey and Hardy 2006; Perez De Heredia et al. 2012). Results from animal and translational clinical studies suggest of macrophage infiltration into mammary and subcutaneous adipocytes and formation of crown-like structures around necrotic adipocyte which in turn activates the transcription factor, nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells ( NF-κB) and induces pro-inflammatory mediators such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF- α), interleukines and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) (Cowey and Hardy 2006; Perez De Heredia et al. 2012; Morris et al. 2011). These pro-inflammatory factors activate cytochrome P450 19 (CYP19) gene transcription yielding elevation in aromatase gene activity. (Festa et al. 2001) In addition, it has been proposed that chronic internal inflammation lends to perpetual generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species which in turn promotes a variety of damages ranging from mutations to post-translation modifications of proteins involved in apoptosis, DNA repair and cell cycle check points (Festa et al. 2001; Pollard 2008; Hamed et al. 2012; Hussain and Harris 2007).

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an amalgamation of several clinical signs and symptoms of which a minimum of three of the five risk factors, insulin resistance, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and low serum levels of HDL cholesterol, and obesity are required for diagnosis of this syndrome (Grundy et al. 2004; Grundy 2005). Remarkably, research on the association between MetS and PMBC is limited and results are not conclusive (Aghamohammadzaeh and Heagerty 2012; Bondia-Pons et al. 2012; Bjorge et al. 2010; Sinagra et al. 2002; Rosato et al. 2011; Kabat et al. 2009; Agnoli et al. 2010).

The natural history of breast cancer involves pathologically defined multi step process, starting from hyperplastic lesions to in situ and finally to invasive cancer, over a period of time (Polyak 2007; Dupont and Page 1985; Hartman et al. 2005). It is well accepted that not all women diagnosed with hyperplastic or in situ lesions subsequently are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer; nor all woman with the diagnosis of MetS eventually are diagnosed with the disease. These observations suggest that certain exogenous factors in conjunction with genetic predisposition can alter host susceptibility to carcinogenesis. In view of these observations, we conducted a retrospective study with the objective of estimating the association between MetS and PMBC; in addition, we evaluated the potential association of variants (SNPs) of eight genes which have been implicated in harboring susceptibility to adiposity, inflammation and cell proliferation (Frayling et al. 2007; Kakamani et al. 2011; Hunter et al. 2007; Dossus et al. 2008; Langsenlehner et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2012; Healey et al. 2011; Dossus et al. 2010; Stacey et al. 2007; Andreasen et al. 2008; Rebbeck et al. 2009; Easton et al. 2007; Brasky et al. 2011).

Materials and methods

Study design

We implemented a prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) design approach (Pepe et al. 2008). We benefited from the MyCode prospective cohort biobanking project where blood samples are collected and procured from the primary care patient population across 31 counties within Geisinger Health System (GHS) service catchments. The banked samples are representative of the primary care patient population at GHS because of the high accrual rate of 89% of patients approached. At the time of collection, blood samples are processed according to the standard protocol, serum and DNA are then aliquoted into freezer vials, and managed by a sample tracking software FreezerWorks (Dataworks Development, Inc. Mountlake Terrace, WA) before banking in the designated freezers. All samples can be linked to various electronic databases such as Clinical Decision Information System (CDIS). The MyCode project is in full compliance with the U.S. Congress Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 and has the approval of the Institutional Review Board.

Case definition and identification

We defined cases as women with the diagnosis of breast cancer between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010. Cases were identified using the ICD-9 coding system (174.x). The MyCode database was linked to medical record numbers and subsequently to the electronic health records (EHR). Women whose diagnoses pre-dated 1/1/2001, women with diagnosis of malignancies of other organs sites except for squamous and/or basal cell carcinoma were excluded, women with medical conditions that required chronic intake of steroids and women younger than age 40 or older than 79 years were excluded.

Control selection

Members of the cohort with no history of breast or other organ site malignancies or chronic prescription of steroids comprised the control group. We applied a ratio of one case to four controls, matched by age (± 5 years) and year of entry into the cohort. Date of blood donation to the MyCode prospective biobanking was considered the entry point for each person into the cohort.

Data elements

Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from CDIS, an enterprise-wide data warehouse. Data were downloaded into the databases that were created for the purpose of this study.

Data quality control and assurance

We developed a standard operational procedure for manual review of data from EHR. One of the study personnel with training in medical abstraction reviewed the EHRs over a period of nine months. The validity of electronically downloaded data was evaluated against the manually reviewed and retrieved data (Feng et al. 2013).

Definition of metabolic syndrome

We used the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria of 1999 to classify women with or without MetS.16 The WHO criteria require presence of three clinically diagnosed symptoms, the diagnosis of insulin resistance in combination with two other symptoms (Table 1). Women with clinical documentation of type II diabetes, or impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance and any two of the symptoms listed in Table 1 then were categorized into the MetS group. Height and weight data were collected from the first encounter with the health care system until the date of diagnosis of breast cancer. For each woman, we calculated her average value of weight and height that were measured across all clinical visits. The average values then were applied to calculate body mass index (BMI).
Table 1

Clinical criteria for metabolic syndrome established by World Health Organization

Clinical diagnosis

Indications

1. Insulin Resistance

Adult onset/type II diabetes or

Impaired fasting glucose or

Impaired glucose tolerance or

2. Hypertension

Antihypertensive medication or

Urinary excretion rate of ≥ 20μg/min or

Albumin:Creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g

3. Hyperlipidemia

Serum triglyceride ≥ 150 mg/dl

4. HDL cholesterol level

Serum level < 39 mg/dl

5. Obesity

Body Mass Index > 30 kg/m2 or

Waist:Hip ratio >0.85

Selection of SNPs

In selecting the genes and their SNPs we reviewed findings from GWAS and other independent studies and applied minor allele frequency filtering approach and function prediction method to select a total of 64 SNPs of eight genes (Frayling et al. 2007; Kakamani et al. 2011; Hunter et al. 2007; Dossus et al. 2008; Langsenlehner et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2012; Healey et al. 2011;Dossus et al. 2010; Stacey et al. 2007; Andreasen et al. 2008; Rebbeck et al. 2009; Easton et al. 2007; Brasky et al. 2011) (Table 2).
Table 2

List of the genes and their variants (SNPs) evaluated

Gene

Chromosomal location

SNPs

FGGR2

10q26

rs1219648, rs11200014, rs2981579

COX-2/PTGS2

1q25.2-25.3

rs2745559, rs689470, rs689466,

rs2206593, rs5277, rs12042763,

rs2383529

FTO

16q12.2

rs9939609, rs1861868, rs1477196

GHRL

3q26.3

rs171336, rs171407, rs35684,

rs4684677, rs2075356, rs696217,

rs27647, rs3755777, rs27498, rs10490815

GHSR

3q26.2

rs2948694, rs2922126

IL6

7p21.0

rs4552807 rs6969502

rs6952003 rs10156056 rs7776857

rs7801617 rs7805828 rs12700386

rs1800795 rs2069840 rs2069861

rs10242595 rs11766273

MAP3K1

5q11.2

rs889312

ESRα

6q25.1

rs2046210, rs12662670, rs3020314

Laboratory analysis

Banked samples were retrieved and were sent to the core laboratory for analysis. All samples were marked with the study unique identifiers and the laboratory personnel and the collaborating investigators remained masked to the status of samples.

DNA isolation

DNA was extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood using QIAsymphony SP Robot with Qiagen QIAsymphony DNA Midi Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, California) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Quantification of extracted DNA was performed using a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, Delaware).

Genotype analysis

Single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping was performed on TaqMan® OpenArray System with assay kit (64 assay format) and Genotyping Master Mix purchased from Life Technologies (Life Technologies, Foster City, California), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 10 ul of each DNA samples (containing 10 ng of DNA, 5 μL of TaqMan Genotyping Master Mix, 0.25 μL of 40x assay mix, and water) plated in 384 well plate were loaded on OpenArray assay slide with Life Technologies OpenArray® AccuFill™ System (Life Technologies, Foster City, California) then performed PCR on GeneAmp PCR System 9700 (Life Technologies, Foster City, California) as follows: 93°C for 10 minutes followed by 50 cycles at 95°C for 45 seconds, 94°C for 13 seconds, and 53°C for 2 minutes 14 seconds. The post-PCR OppenArray assay slides were then scanned with OpenArray scanner and analyzed using TaqMan genotyper Software v1.3 (Life Technologies, Foster City, California). We took a two-step quality control measure to remove poor quality genotype data. First, 10% samples were replicated to test the concordance and reliability of the genotyping result. We excluded discordant SNPs. This step was followed by excluding SNPs with a recall rate of < 85% for genotyping; this step was followed by manual recall for the remaining SNPs. A total of 40 SNPs passed the two-step quality control requirement.

Linkage disequilibrium and haplotype analysis

The observed frequencies for all selected SNPs in our sample were compared with and were in agreement with the Hardy-Weinberg-Equilibrium. We then evaluated the linkage disequilibrium structure of the SNPs in our sample using the Gabriel algorithm (Gabriel et al. 2002). (HaploView 4.0 Day Lab, Cambridge, MA). This step is followed by reconstruction of the haplotypes to evaluate the interaction between SNPs. We conducted haplotype analysis using haplo-stats Version 1.4.0 (Sinnwell, JP and Schaid DJ, built in R, version 2.7.1). In this package the maximum likelihood estimate of a haplotype probability is calculated using the EM algorithm, and used to determine possible haplotypes.

Statistical analysis

Distributions of demographic and clinico-pathology variables between cases and controls were evaluated using non-parametric and parametric statistics. In developing the multivariate logistic regression model to determine the variables that were associated with the risk of PMBC, we first estimated the individual effect of each variable and their interactions with the outcome of interest, breast cancer. Variables with a P-value ≤ 0.10 were considered as the candidate variables. Interactions between variables also were tested at P-value ≤ .05. The final model included five candidate variables (age, smoking status, alcohol consumption status, family history of breast cancer, MetS and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the interaction between MetS and HRT. In our next analysis, we restricted the reference group to controls with no history of exposure to HRT or smoking and no clinical documentation of MetS The final model included age, family history of breast cancer, HRT, MetS and the interaction between HRT and MetS. The estimated risk of PMBC was not significantly different from our first approach where all controls were inclusive. Therefore, we use this reference group to estimate the relative risk contributions of genetic polymorphism to PMBC in presence of clinico-demographic risk factors. For each SNP, testing each SNP individually for its association with PMBC, we used the Cockerham genetic model additive coding scheme and dominant coding scheme (Cordell 2002). For the additive coding approach, we assigned the zero, one or two to each SNP genotype according to the number of copies of minor alleles. For the dominant coding scheme, we assigned the value of one for rare homozygozity and zero for the alternative homozygotes. The SNPs which showed significant association by either coding scheme, were selected (P-value < 0.1). The final multivariable model was restricted to the dominant coding scheme and was adjusted by age, family history of breast cancer, HRT, MetS and the interaction between HRT and MetS. Finally, we evaluated the risk prediction ability of the final model by plotting the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated area under the curve (AUC), which was equivalent to c-statistics, and reported for each model.

Ethics

This study was approved the Institutional Review Board and is in full compliance with the U.S. Congress Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.

Results

We identified a total of 4,075 women between ages of 40 and 79 years from the MyCode database. (Figure 1) A total of 309 women were excluded because of the history of malignancies of organ sites other than breast and/or auto-immune disorders that required chronic intake of steroids. We then conducted a search using the ICD-9 coding system for breast cancer (174.x) to identify women with the diagnosis of breast cancer in this cohort. A total of 204 women were identified of whom 24 did not meet the eligibility criteria because their diagnoses pre-dated January 1, 2001. Therefore, a total of 180 cases and 732 controls contributed to this study. The clinico-demographic characteristics of the cases and controls are presented in Table 3. Cases with the mean age of (63.1 ± 9.0) years were two years younger than controls (65.4 ±7.8). We did not detect a statistically significant difference in the mean BMI between cases (32.34 ± 7.89) and controls (32.16 ± 7.74); however, the proportion of cases (n = 49, 27.22%) who met the three criteria for MetS was significantly higher than controls (n = 24, 3.10%) (P-value < .001). The proportion of cases (n = 64, 64.44%) with medical documentation of HRT was about 1.8 fold of the control-patients (n = 280, 36.22%) (P-value < .001). Finally, twice as many cases (n = 22, 12.22%) as controls (n = 42, 5.43%) had medical documentation of first and/or second degree family history of breast cancer. Findings from the multivariate logistic regression of clinico-demographic characteristics are presented in Table 4. Advanced age was protective against PMBC (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98, P-value = .001). While, family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.48, 95% CI 1.37-4.47, P-value = .003), HRT (OR = 3.13; 95% CI 2.11-4.64. P-value < .001) and MetS (OR = 12.46, 95% CI 5.62-27.65, P-value < .001) were also associated with increased risk of PMBC. Interestingly, our analysis yielded an interaction between MetS and HRT. The risk of PMBC was more the 30 fold higher for women with MetS and exposure to HRT relative to those without either (OR = 31.90, 95%CI 14.6-69.63, P-value < .001).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2193-1801-2-638/MediaObjects/40064_2013_Article_687_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Selection of cases and controls from the MyCode Biobanking Project.

Table 3

Clinico-demographic characteristics of case-patients and controls

Variable

Case-patients

Controls

P-value

N = 180 (%)

N = 773 (%)

 

Age at entry into the cohort (years)

63.1 (± 9.00)

65.4 (± 7.80)

.001

Body Mass Index (kg/m 2 )

32.34 (±7.89)

32.16 (± 7.74)

.77

Metabolic Syndrome

  

< .001

Yes

49 (27.22)

24 (3.1)

 

No

131 (72.78)

749 (96.9)

 

Smoking Status

  

.06

Ever Smoked

47 (26.11)

259 (33.51)

 

Never Smoked

133 (73.89)

514 (66.49)

Alcohol Consumption

  

.69

Yes

76 (42.22)

314 (40.62)

 

Never

104 (57.78)

459 (59.38)

Hormonal Replacement Therapy

  

< .001

Yes, ever used

116 (64.44)

280 (36.22)

 

No, never used

64 (35.56)

493 (63.78)

Family History of Breast Cancer

  

.001

(first or second degree)

Yes

22 (12.22)

42 (5.43)

 

No

158 (87.78)

731 (94.57)

Table 4

Adjusted estimated risk of post-menopausal breast cancer: Multivariate logistic regression model; C-statistic = 0.76

Risk factor

Cases

Controls

OR (95% CI)1

P-value

Age

180

773

0.96 (.94-.98)

.001

First Degree Family History of Breast Cancer

   

.003

Yes

22

42

1.00

 

No

158

731

2.48 (1.37-4.47)

 

Smoking

   

0.06

Yes

47

259

1.00

 

No

133

514

0.68 (0.45-1.02)

 

HRT

   

< 0.001

Yes

116

180

1.00

 

No

64

493

3.13 (2.11-4.64)

 

Metabolic Syndrome

   

< 0.001

Yes

49

24

1.00

 

No

131

749

12.46 (5.62-27.65)

 

Metabolic Syndrome and HRT

   

<.001

Yes

33

10

1.0

 

No

147

763

31.90 (14.6-69.63)

 

1OR (95% CI): Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval).

Frequency distributions of SNPs of the eight genes stratified by disease status are presented in Table 5. Frequency differences of one polymorphism in the GHSR gene (rs2922126), one polymorphism in IL6 gene (rs1800795) and one polymorphism in the MAP3K1 gene (rs889312) between cases and controls reached the level of statistical significance. For the gene GHSR (rs2922126), the proportion of cases (n = 158, 95.15%) with the dominant allele (T/T and A/T) was higher than the controls (n = 597, 88.18%). Similarly, prevalence of the dominant allele (C/C and G/C) of the gene IL6 (rs1800795) was higher for cases (n = 144, 87.8%) compared with the controls (n = 569, 81.4%). Finally, for the gene MAP3K1 (rs889312), analysis of our data yielded cases (n = 23, 13.86%) with a higher prevalence of recessive allele (C/C) compared with the controls (n = 41, 5.69%) (Table 5).
Table 5

Frequency distribution of SNPs between cases and controls using the dominant coding scheme

Gene, chromosomal location

SNP

Genotype

Controls

Cases

P-value

N (%)

N (%)

FTO, 16 q12.2

rs9939609

A/A and A/T

513 (71.35)

122 (72.62)

0.74

T/T

206 (28.65)

46 (27.38)

rs1861868

C/C and C/T

526 (78.39)

123 (76.88)

0.68

T/T

145 (21.61)

37 (23.13)

rs1477196

G/G and A/G

582 (82.32)

135 (82.82)

0.88

A/A

125 (17.68)

28 (17.18)

PTGS2, 1q25.2-25.3

rs2745559

C/C and A/C

632 (95.04)

157 (96.91)

0.31

A/A

33 (4.96)

5 (3.09)

rs689466

T/T and C/T

483 (69.90)

112 (69.14)

0.85

C/C

208 (30.10)

50 (30.86)

rs689470

G/G and A/G

617 (86.90)

153 (90.53)

0.20

A/A

93 (13.10)

16 (9.47)

Rs2206593

G/G and A/G

602 (83.50)

150 (86.71)

0.30

A/A

119 (16.50)

23 (13.29)

rs5277

C/C and C/G

656 (97.33)

155 (98.73)

0.30

G/G

18 (2.67)

2 (1.27)

rs12042763

G/G and G/T

565 (87.73)

134 (86.45)

0.67

T/T

79 (12.27)

21 (13.55)

rs2383529

A/A and A/G

611(94.58)

150 (96.15)

0.42

G/G

35 (5.42)

6 (3.85)

FGGR2, 10q26

rs1219648

A/A and A/G

571 (85.61)

134 (84.28)

0.67

G/G

96 (14.39)

25 (15.72)

rs11200014

G/G and A/G

608 (87.11)

131 (82.39)

0.12

A/A

90 (12.89)

28 (17.61)

rs2981582

G/G and A/G

581 (85.69)

128 (81.53)

0.19

A/A

97 (14.31)

29 (18.47)

GHRL, 3q26.3

rs171336

G/G and G/T

617 (87.64)

148 (90.24)

0.35

T/T

87 (12.36)

16 (9.76)

rs171407

A/A and A/G

554 (80.06)

128 (83.12)

0.39

G/G

138 (19.94)

26 (16.88)

rs35684

A/A and A/G

663 (92.73)

159 (95.21)

0.25

G/G

52 (7.27)

8 (4.79)

rs4684677

T/T and A/T

699 (99.86)

163 (100.00)

0.63

A/A

1 (0.14)

0 (0.00)

rs2075356

T/T and C/T

629 (87.48)

148 (91.93)

0.11

T/T

90 (12.52)

13 (8.07)

rs27647

T/T and C/T

572 (82.18)

142 (87.65)

0.09

C/C

124 (17.82)

20 (12.35)

rs3755777

C/C and C/G

641 (94.40)

152 (94.41)

0.99

G/G

38 (5.60)

9 (5.59)

rs27498

G/G and A/G

604 (87.03)

148 (88.10)

0.71

A/A

90 (12.97)

20 (11.90)

rs10490815

T/T and C/T

606 (93.09)

140 (92.72)

0.87

C/C

45 (6.91)

11 (7.28)

GHSR, 3q26.2

rs2948694

A/A and A/G

708 (98.33)

163 (98.79)

0.67

G/G

12 (1.67)

2 (1.21)

rs2922126

T/T and A/T

597 (88.18)

158 (95.18)

0.008 1

A/A

80 (11.82)

8 (4.82)

IL6, 7p21.0

rs4552807

T/T and A/T

527 (76.16)

128 (75.74)

0.91

A/A

165 (23.84)

41 (24.26)

rs6969502

G/G and A/G

674 (95.33)

158 (94.61)

0.70

A/A

33 (4.67)

9 (5.39)

rs6952003

T/T and A/T

629 (94.44)

147 (94.23)

0.92

A/A

37 (5.56)

9 (5.77)

rs10156056

G/G and C/G

655 (98.05)

153 (98.71)

0.58

C/C

13 (1.95)

2 (1.29)

rs7776857

T/T and G/T

637 (88.23)

150 (92.02)

0.16

G/G

85 (11.77)

13 (7.98)

rs7801617

G/G and A/G

631 (88.50)

158 (93.49)

0.06

A/A

82 (11.50)

11 (6.51)

rs7805828

A/A and A/G

606 (87.57)

133 (83.13)

0.13

G/G

86 (12.43)

27 (16.88)

rs12700386

C/C and C/G

695 (96.80)

161 (96.99)

0.90

G/G

23 (3.20)

5 (3.01)

rs1800795

C/C and G/C

569 (81.40)

144 (87.80)

0.05 1

G/G

130 (18.60)

20 (12.20)

rs2069840

C/C and C/G

633 (90.56)

151 (89.88)

0.79

G/G

66 (9.44)

17 (10.12)

rs10242595

G/G and A/G

613 (89.75)

143 (91.08)

0.62

A/A

70 (10.25)

14 (8.92)

rs11766273

G/G and A/G

691(98.29)

159 (100.00)

0.097

A/A

12 (1.71)

0 (0.00)

MAP3K1, 5q11.2

rs889312

A/A and A/C

679 (94.31)

143 (86.14)

< 0.001 1

C/C

41 (5.69)

23 (13.86)

 

ESR1, 6q25.1

rs2046210

G/G and A/G

573 (83.77)

139 (84.24)

0.88

A/A

111 (16.23)

26 (15.76)

rs12662670

T/T and G/T

631 (92.25)

152 (95.00)

0.23

G/G

53 (7.75)

8 (5.00)

rs3020314

T/T and C/T

564 (80.34)

134 (83.75)

0.32

C/C

138 (19.66)

26 (16.25)

1Genotype distributions between cases and controls were statistically significant.

Results from our final multivariate risk estimation analysis for SNPs combined with the clinico-demographic characteristics are presented in Table 6. One SNP (rs 2922126) in the GHSR showed a protective effect against PMBC among homozygotes for the minor allele (A/A) (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-.89, P-value = .02); while, homozygosity for the minor allele (C/C) of the SNP (rs889312) of the gene MAP3K1 was associated with the risk of PMBC (OR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.25-4.62, P-value = .008). We did not detected significant interactions between SNPs or between the SNPs and the clinico-demographic risk factors. Advanced age continued to be protective against PMBC (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P-value = .02). While, family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.14-4.43. P = .02), HRT (OR = 3.35; 95% CI 2.15-5.21, P < .001), and MetS (OR = 14.83, 95% CI 5.63-39.08, P < .001) and interaction between HRT and MetS (OR = 39.38, 95% CI 15.71-98.70, P < .001) remained statistically significant risk factors for PMBC.
Table 6

Adjusted estimated risk of post-menopausal breast cancer relative to the reference group, defined as women with no history of exposure to hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) and absence of medical documentation of clinical signs of metabolic syndrome (MetS); C-Statistic = 0.77

Risk factors

Cases

ControlsW

OR (95% CI)1

P-value

N = 146

N = 613

GHSR (rs2922126)

   

.02

T/T and A/T

137

532

1.00

 

A/A

9

81

.4 (.18-.89)

 

MAP3K1

    

(rs889312 )

A/A and A/C

125

573

1.00

.008

C/C

21

40

2.41 (1.25-4.63)

 

Age

146

613

.98 (.95-.99)

.02

Family History of Breast Cancer

   

.02

Yes

17

34

2.22 (1.14-4.43)

 

No

129

579

Risk Factors

    

Reference Group

37

384

1.00

< 0.001

HRT

70

213

3.35 (2.15-5.21)

< 0.001

MetS

12

9

14.83 (5.63-39.08)

< 0.001

HRT and MetS

27

7

39.38 (15.71-98.70)

 

1OR (95% CI) denotes Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval).

Discussion

Findings from the present study further support results from previous studies that metabolic syndrome (MetS) increases the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) (Bjorge et al. 2010; Kabat et al. 2009; Agnoli et al. 2010; Esposito et al. 2013). We did not find an association between obesity, as measured by BMI and the risk of PMBC. In this study, we calculated BMI by taking the average of height and weight of data collected across clinical encounters, beginning with the first encounter with the system until the date of breast cancer diagnosis for all cases and their age-matched controls. Although, BMI adjusts for height, it neither adjusts for body frame size nor muscle mass. Also, it may be that insulin resistance rather than excess body weight, although highly correlated, hold the underlying biological reason for the observed increase risk of PMBC in women diagnosed with MetS. In this study, we applied the WHO criterion which recognizes the diagnosis of insulin resistance as the main symptom of MetS (Grundy et al. 2004). Gunter et al. reported a more than 2-fold increase in the risk of PMBC with fasting serum levels of insulin which was independent of BMI and other established breast cancer risk factors (Gunter et al. 2009). The complex pathophysiology of hyperinsulinemia, i.e. increased serum level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and leptin and its association with the risk of PMBC has been evaluated previously and discussed extensively (Braun et al. 2011; Vatten et al. 2008; Irvin et al. 2005). IGF-1 and leptin released by visceral adipocytes have endocrine effects on several organs including breast. In addition, it has been suggested IGF-1 and leptin represent a molecular link between adipose and breast tissue (Ozhay and Nahta 2008). Adipocytes of stroma of breast epithelial cells release IGF-1 and leptin which provide paracrine growth stimulatory effects. It has proposed an autocrine signaling function as breast cancer are able to produce and secrete IGF-1 and leptin and express cell surface receptors for both ligands (Ozhay and Nahta 2008). Also, hyperinsulinemia has been associated with chronic internal inflammation and oxidative stress which have been suggested as risk factors for breast and other cancers (Bondia-Pons et al. 2012; Wiseman and Halliwell 1996).

Our findings yielded an exaggerated risk of PMBC in women diagnosed with MetS with exposure to HRT. It is well accepted that HRT increases the risk of hormone receptor positive breast cancer (Schairer et al. 2000; Ross et al. 2000). Our findings confirm the report by Gunter et al. suggesting hyperinsulinemia and serum levels of estradiol largely explain the association between obesity and PMBC (Gunter et al. 2009). Similarly, Rosenberg et al., have reported of poorer prognostic indicators at the initial clinical presentation of breast cancer and shorter overall survival among obese women using HRT when compared with obese non-users and normal body weight women (Rosenberg et al. 2009). We propose that the observed exaggerated risk of PMBC in our study sample most likely is due to the combination of an increased level of bioavailability of estradiol and an elevated susceptibility to PMBC secondary to MetS. The clinical implication of this interaction is important, given the high prevalence of obesity among the US population, particularly among African-American and Mexican-American women (2002).

Our findings suggested polymorphisms of GHSR (rs2922126) and MAP3K1 (rs889312) were associated with the risk of PMBC independent of clinico-demographic risk factors. Our results suggest homozygotes for minor allele of GHSR (rs2922126) carried a lower risk for PMBC relative to carriers of major alleles. Dossus et al. reported a 2-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer for homozygote carriers of the GHSR (rs2948694) but did not find a statistically significant association with GHSR (rs2922126) and risk of breast cancer (2010). The discrepancies in findings between these two studies potentially are due to multiple factors. First, our finding is based on a small sample size of relatively ethnically homogenous women. Second, women who contributed to our study on the average were ten years older. Third, the average BMI for women in our study was about 32 Kg/m2 compared with the average BMI of 26 Kg/m2 women who contributed to the EPIC (Dossus et al. 2010). Finally, in our study women were categorized by their MetS diagnostic measures, whereas in the EPIC study women were classified by their anthropometric measures and circulating levels of IGF-I. Gherlin and its receptor primarily have been implicated in growth hormone release, energy balance, food intake and long-term regulation of body weight. However, recent reports suggest of is complexity and multifarious system such as an inhibitory effect on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression (Gahete et al. 2011; Dixit et al. 2004).

We detected polymorphism of MAP3K1 (rs889312) was associated with an elevated risk of PMBC, independent of clinico-demographic risk factors. Our findings concur with previous studies suggesting polymorphism of MAP3KI (rs889312) was associated with the increased risk of hormone receptor positive breast cancer (Rebbeck et al. 2009; Easton et al. 2007). Although, we did not assess hormone receptor status of breast cancer cases in this study, it is well accepted that prevalence of hormone receptor positive subtype is the highest in post-menopausal women. MAP3K1 encodes mitogen-activated protein kinase protein that is involved in signal transduction pathway, a highly evolutionarily conserved mechanism of eukaroyotic cell regulation (Kyriakis and Avruch 2012). The multiple MAPK pathways present in all eukaroyotic cells enable cells to coordinate and integrate responses to a spectrum of stimuli ranging from sex-hormones, growth factors to inflammation induced cytokines and stress induced ligands (Kyriakis and Avruch 2012).

The main strength of our study was the availability of longitudinal body weight and height data. The median stay with our health care system is 18 years. Therefore, the availability of long-term data enabled us to estimate the mean body weight for each study participant which is a better reflection of the “true” body weight as oppose to a one-point-in-time measurement or self-reported body weight. Also, our study benefited from clinically documented signs and symptoms of MetS and medically documented use of HRT therapy over the period of stay of each study participant with the health care system. Therefore, the likelihood of recall bias was reduced in this study. Our study had its limitations. First, the relatively small sample size reduced the statistical power to adequately discern the association between SNPs of genes and MetS. Also, it prevented us from stratifying women by their breast cancer subtype. Also, our study sample was derived from a population relatively homogenous with respect to its genetic pool and life style risk factors. Never-the-less, our study further sheds light on the associate between prolonged MetS and the risk of PMBC.

In summary, findings from our study further confirm that MetS increases the risk of PMBC and argues in favor of reducing the exposure to HRT. In addition, our finding is another independent confirmation that low penetrance genes involved in the inflammatory pathway, i.e. MAP3KI gene, may have a plausible causative role in sporadic breast cancers. Given the fact that genetic constitutionality of individuals cannot be changed, at least at the present level of science and technology, our effort should be focused on reducing the risk of PMBC through life style modification.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

This work was partially supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania Breast Cancer Coalition. The authors would like to thank the population within the 31 service catchments of the Geisinger Health System for their contributions and continuous support of the MyCode biobanking project.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Health Research, Geisinger Health System
(2)
Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
(3)
Weis Center for Research, Geisinger Health System
(4)
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health System
(5)
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Health System
(6)
Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

References

  1. Aghamohammadzaeh R, Heagerty A: Obesity-related hypertension: epidemiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and the contribution of Perivascular adipose tissue. Ann Med 2012, 44(Suppl 1):s74-s84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnoli C, Berrino F, Abagnato CA, et al.: Metabolic syndrome and postmenopausal breast cancer in the ORDET cohort: a nested case–control study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2010, 20: 41-48. 10.1016/j.numecd.2009.02.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasen CH, Stender-Peteren KL, Mogensen MS, et al.: Low Physical activity accentuate the effect of the FTO rs9939609 polymorphism on body fat accumulation. Diabetes 2008, 57: 95-101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjorge T, Lukanova A, Jonsson H, et al.: Metabolic syndrome and breast cancer in the Me-Can (metabolic syndrome and cancer) project. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2010, 19: 1737-1745. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0230View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Bondia-Pons I, Ryan L, Martinez JA: Oxidative stress and inflammation interactions in human obesity. J Physiol Biochem 2012, 68: 701-711. 10.1007/s13105-012-0154-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasky TM, Bonner MR, Moysich KB, et al.: Genetic variants in COX-2, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and breast cancer risk: the Western New York exposures and breast cancer (WEB) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 126: 157-165. 10.1007/s10549-010-1082-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun S, Bitton-Worms K, LeRoith D: The link between metabolic syndrome and cancer. Int J Biol Sci 2011, 7: 1003-1015.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmichael AR: Diagnostic in obesity comorbidities, obesity and prognosis of breast cancer. Obes Rev 2006, 7: 333-340. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00261.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordell HJ: Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn’t mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Human Mol Gent 2002, 11: 2463-2468. 10.1093/hmg/11.20.2463View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowey S, Hardy RW: The metabolic syndrome; a high-risk for cancer? Am J Pathol 2006, 169: 1505-1522. 10.2353/ajpath.2006.051090View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings SR, Tice JA, Bauer S, et al.: Prevention of breast cancer in post-menopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101: 384-398. 10.1093/jnci/djp018View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixit VD, Schaffer EM, Pyle RS, et al.: Ghrelin inhibits leptin- and activation-induced proinflammatory cytokine expression by human monocytes and T cells. J Clin Invest 2004, 114: 57-65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dossus L, McKay JD, Canzian F, et al.: Polymorphism of genes for Ghrelin and its receptor in relation to anthropometry, circulating levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3, and breast cancer risk: a case–control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Carcinogenesis 2008, 29: 1360-1366. 10.1093/carcin/bgn083View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Dossus L, Kaaks R, Canzian F, et al.: PTGS2 And IL6 genetic variation and risk of breast and prostate cancer: results from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (BPC3). Carcinogenesis 2010, 31: 455-461. 10.1093/carcin/bgp307View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Dupont WD, Page DL: Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. NEJM 1985, 312: 146-151. 10.1056/NEJM198501173120303View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, et al.: Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 2007, 447: 1087-1093. 10.1038/nature05887View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Capuarno A, et al.: Metabolic syndrome and postmenopausal breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Menopause 2013. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  18. Feng W, Yan X, Colonie R, et al.: Sensible use of ICD-9 diagnostic codes of observational data in breast and endometrial cancer research. San Francisco, CA: Abstract, Presented at the Annual of Meeting of the Health Maintenance Research Network; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Festa A, D’Agostino R, Williams K, et al.: The relations of body fat mass and distribution to markers of chronic inflammation. Int J Obes 2001, 25: 1407-1415. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801792View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ford ES, Gile WH, Dietz WH: Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among US adults, findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA 2002, 287: 356-359. 10.1001/jama.287.3.356View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, et al.: A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007, 316: 889-894. 10.1126/science.1141634View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabriel SB, Schaffner SF, Nguyen H, et al.: The structure of haplotype blocks in the human genome. Science 2002, 296: 2225-2229. 10.1126/science.1069424View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Gahete MD, Cordoba-Chaon J, Hergueta-Redondo M, et al.: A novel human Gherlin variant (In1-Gherlin) and Ghrelin-O-Acyltransferase are overexpressed in breast cancer: potential pathophysiological relevance. PLoS One 2011, 6: e23302. 10.1371/journal.pone.0023302View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Galic S, Oakhill JS, Steinberg GR: Adipose tissue as an endocrine organ. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2010, 25: 129-139.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Gruber CJ, Tshcugguel W, Schneeberger C, et al.: Production and actions of estrogens. NEJM 2002, 346: 340-352. 10.1056/NEJMra000471View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Grundy SM: Metabolic syndrome scientific statement by the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005, 25: 2243-2244. 10.1161/01.ATV.0000189155.75833.c7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Grundy SM, Brewer HB, Cleeman JI, et al.: Definition of metabolic syndrome. Report of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issue related to definition. Circulation 2004, 109: 433-438. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000111245.75752.C6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunter MJ, Hoover DR, Yu H, et al.: Insulin, Insulin-like growth factor-I and risk f breast cancer in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101: 48-60. 10.1093/jnci/djn415View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamed EA, Zakhary MM, Maximous DW: Apoptosis, angiogenesis, inflammation and oxidative stress: basic interactions in patients with early and metastatic breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012, 138: 999-1009. 10.1007/s00432-012-1176-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartman LC, Sellers TH, Frost MH, et al.: Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. NEJM 2005, 353: 229-237. 10.1056/NEJMoa044383View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Healey CS, Ahmed S, ANECS, et al.: Breast cancer susceptibility polymorphisms and endometrial cancer risk: a collaborative endometrial cancer study. Carcinogenesis 2011, 32: 1862-1866. 10.1093/carcin/bgr214View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB, et al.: A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Gen 2007, 39: 870-874. 10.1038/ng2075View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hussain SP, Harris CC: Inflammation and cancer: an ancient link with novel potential. Int J Cancer 2007, 121: 2373-2380. 10.1002/ijc.23173View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Irvin ML, McTiernan A, Bernstein L, et al.: Relationship of obesity and physical activity with C-peptide, Leptin and Insulin-like growth factor in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarers Prev 2005, 14: 2881-2888. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0185View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Kabat GC, Kim M, Chlebowski RT, et al.: A longitudinal study of the metabolic syndrome and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidem Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18: 2046-2053. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0235View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Kakamani V, Yi N, Sadim M, et al.: The role of the fat mass and obesity associated gene (FTO) in breast cancer risk. BMC Med Gen 2011, 12: 52-59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Kyriakis JM, Avruch J: Mammalina MAPK signal transduction pathways activated by stress and inflammation: A 10-year old udate. Physiol Rev 2012, 92: 689-737. 10.1152/physrev.00028.2011View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Langsenlehner U, Yasdani-Biuki B, Eder T, et al.: The cyclooxygenase-2 (PTGS2) 8473 T > C polymorphism is associated with breast cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12: 1392-1394. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2055View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM: Breast cancer- epidemiology, risk factors and genetics. BMJ 2000, 321: 624-628. 10.1136/bmj.321.7261.624View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Missmer SA, Eliassen H, Barbieri RL, et al.: Endogenous estrogen, androgen, and progesterone concentration and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96: 1856-1865. 10.1093/jnci/djh336View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Morris PG, Hudis CA, Giri D, et al.: Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in the breast tissue of obese women with breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res 2011, 4: 1021-1029. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0110View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Ozhay T, Nahta R: A novel unidirectional cross-talk from the insulin-like growth factor-I receptor to leptin receptor in human breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Res 2008, 6: 1052-1056. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-2126View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Pepe MS, Feng Z, Janes H, et al.: Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification for prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100: 1432-1438. 10.1093/jnci/djn326View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Perez De Heredia F, Gomez-Martiez S, Marcos A: Chronic and degenerative diseases, obesity, inflammation and the immune system. Proc Nutr Soc 2012, 71: 332-338. 10.1017/S0029665112000092View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollard JW: Macrophages define the invasive microenvironment in breast cancer. J Leukoc Biol 2008, 84: 623-630. 10.1189/jlb.1107762View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Polyak K: Breast cancer: origins and evolution. J Clin Invest 2007, 117: 3155-3163. 10.1172/JCI33295View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Rebbeck TR, DeMichele A, Tran TV, et al.: Hormone-dependent effects of FGFR2 and MAP3K1 in breast cancer susceptibility in a population-based sample of post-menopausal African-American and European-American women. Carcinogenesis 2009, 30: 269-274.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosato V, Bosetti C, Talamini R, et al.: Metabolic syndrome and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Ann Oncol 2011, 22: 2687-2692. 10.1093/annonc/mdr025View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenberg L, Czene K, Hall P: Obesity and poor breast cancer prognosis: an illusion because of hormone replacement therapy? Br J Cancer 2009, 100: 1486-1491. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605025View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Ross RK, Paganini-Hill A, Wan PC, et al.: Effect of hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk: Estrogen vs. Estrogen plus progestin. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92: 328-332. 10.1093/jnci/92.4.328View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Schairer C, Lubin J, Troisi R, et al.: Menopausal estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and breast cancer risk. JAMA 2000, 283: 485-491. 10.1001/jama.283.4.485View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Sinagra D, Scarpitta AM, Brigandi M, et al.: Metabolic syndrome and breast cancer risk. Eur Rev Med Pharmcol Sci 2002, 6: 55-59.Google Scholar
  53. Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Egan KM, et al.: Proportion of invasive breast cancer attributable to risk factors modifiable after menopause. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 168: 404-411. 10.1093/aje/kwn143View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, et al.: Common variants on chromosome 2q35 and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Gen 2007, 39: 865-869. 10.1038/ng2064View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Vatten LJ, Holly JM, Gunnell D, et al.: Nested case–control study of the association of circulating levels of serum insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 with breast cancer in young women in Norway. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2008, 17: 2097-2100. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0212View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiseman H, Halliwell B: Damage to DNA by reactive oxygen and nitrogen species: role in inflammatory disease and progression to cancer. Biochem J 1996, 313: 17-29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Z, Zhou D, Lai Y, et al.: Estrogen induces endometrial cancer cell proliferation and invasion by regulating the fat mass and obesity associate gene via PI3K/AKT and MAPK signaling pathways. Cancer Lett 2012, 319: 89-97. 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.12.033View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Yan et al.; licensee Springer. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.