Breast cancer subtype of French women is not influenced by socioeconomic status: A population-based-study

Abstract

Context

The molecular subtype of breast tumours plays a major role in cancer prognosis and treatment options. Triple negative tumours (TN) carry the worst prognosis and affects most frequently women of low socioeconomic status (SES). Studies have shown that non-biologic factors, such as the socioeconomic status could have an influence on tumour biology. To this date no study has been done investigating this association in French women. The objective is to study the association between the SES and the molecular tumour subtype of breast cancer patients in the French county of Côte d’Or. This study benefits from the population data from the Côte d’Or breast cancer registry known for its strict quality control policy.

Methods

Invasive breast cancer cases between 2003 and 2013 were extracted from the Breast cancer registry database in Côte d’Or. A multivariate analysis was conducted using a hierarchical polytomous regression for the multinomial outcomes for the cancer subtype with HR+/HER2 as reference category.

Results

A total of 4553 cases were included in our study. There was no significant association found between SES and tumour subtype in French women at diagnosis. Women older than 75 years were less likely to have a TN and HR+/HER2+ breast cancer (OR = 0.66; CI95% = [0.46–0.94] and OR = 0.51; CI95% = [0.37–0.70] respectively). Women with TN tumour subtype had significantly less lymph node invasion when compared to HR+/HER2- subtype (OR = 0.71; CI95% = [0.54–0.92]).

Conclusion

No significant association was found between socioeconomic status and molecular subtype. Further studies are needed to clarify the mechanisms associated with developing each tumour subtype.

About the Authors:

Aviane Auguste

Affiliations Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France, EA 4184, Medical School, University of Burgundy, 7 boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, Dijon, France

Marion Cortet

Affiliation: Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France

Tienhan Sandrine Dabakuyo-Yonli

Affiliations Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France, EA 4184, Medical School, University of Burgundy, 7 boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, Dijon, France

Ludivine Launay

Affiliation: Plateforme ERISC, U 1086 INSERM "Cancers and Preventions", François Baclesse Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 3 avenue du Général Harris, CAEN, France

Laurent Arnould

Affiliation: Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France

Isabelle Desmoulins

Affiliation: Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France

Patrick Roignot

Affiliation: Pathology Centre, 33 rue Nicolas Bornier, Dijon, France

Ariane Darut-Jouve

Affiliation: Oncology Centre of Park, 18 cours du Général De Gaulle, Dijon, France

Marie-Laure Poillot

Affiliation: Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France

Aurélie Bertaut

Affiliations EA 4184, Medical School, University of Burgundy, 7 boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, Dijon, France, Biostatistics Unit, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France

Patrick Arveux

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Breast and Gynaecologic Cancer Registry of Côte d’Or, Georges-François Leclerc Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, 1 rue du Professeur Marion, Dijon, France, EA 4184, Medical School, University of Burgundy, 7 boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, Dijon, France

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the world [1]. In France, about 50 000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year [2]. Breast tumours are classified into one of four clinically pertinent molecular subtypes based on the joint status of the hormone receptors (oestrogen and progesterone) and human epidermal growth factors receptor 2 (HER2) [3,4]. The hormone receptors (HR) and HER2 receptors are said to be positive if they are overexpressed in a tumour cell. The HR-positive tumours are the most common at diagnosis (80%), and the HER2-positive represents about 15–20% [5]. Receptor testing is readily available and performed routinely during breast cancer diagnosis in France. The information on receptors is of clinical importance since treatment options are selected based on the joint receptor status. Each subtype has its own distinct histological profile and risk factors [2]. The HER2+ tumours are known to be very aggressive and have poor survival in women [3]. Nowadays, the HR+/HER2+ subtype has a better prognosis, particularly in metastatic tumours because it has molecular targets for hormone therapy as well as other targeted treatments like Trastuzumab (Herceptin^TM) [4]. Tumours which are negative for both hormone receptors (HR) and HER2 receptor are called triple negative tumours (TN). These TN tumours have the worst prognosis and affect more often underprivileged women in the USA [5,6]. Socioeconomic status influences the exposure to several risk factors which could modify tumour biology [7,8]. It has been shown that women in high poverty areas tend to secrete more oestrogen when compared to women with a more affluent socioeconomic status [8]. Few studies have looked at the association between socioeconomic status and tumour subtypes [9–14]. Among these studies, there have been registry based analyses where a significant association between the SES and the breast cancer subtype in American women was observed, in particular among the TN cases who had higher odds of being in the lowest socioeconomic stratum when compared to the other subtypes To this date no study has been done investigating this association in women residing in France. Our objective is to study the association between socioeconomic status and breast cancer subtype at diagnosis among women in the French county of Côte d’Or.

Methods

Study population

A population-based study was undertaken using data from the Côte d’Or breast and gynaecological cancer registry. This Breast and Gynaecological Cancer Registry is the only one in France that focuses on breast and gynaecological cancers. It has been collecting comprehensive population-based data since 1982 in this area located in the northeast of France. Women with primary invasive breast cancer and living in the rural county of Côte d’Or at the time of diagnosis were retrospectively selected from January 2003 to December 2013 to be included in this study. The year 2003 is the year that the registry began collecting systematically data for HER2. The data extraction which was performed was anonymized prior to reception of the data by the investigators and did not carry the patient’s names or personal information which could identify them (name initials). The registry has the necessary regulatory agreements to use the patient data from the National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL), aimed at ensuring the application of data privacy laws. (CNIL authorisation number DR-2012-038).

Variables

The Socioeconomic status for each case was determined by using the French European Deprivation Index (FEDI) which is an ecological deprivation index, based on a European 2006 survey and French 2007 census data. This index was developed to take into account the socioeconomic and cultural particularities of the French context [15]. This index measures a deprivation score on an area-level for all the IRISs in France (“Ilots Regroupés pour l’Information Statistique”: Merged Islet for Statistical Information) which are geographic zones containing approximately 2000 inhabitants. The individuals were categorised into quintiles according to the deprivation score of the IRIS in which they live.

The cancer stage was determined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumour Node Metastasis (AJCC TNM) classification of malignant tumours and cases were categorised into 4 classes (Stage I, II, III and IV) [16]. Hormone receptor and HER2 receptor status was determined using an immunohistochemistry exam. In case of an uncertain result for the HER2 receptor status, a FISH exam (Fluorescent in situ Hybridisation) was used to clarify the status. the molecular subtype was determined by combining the hormone receptor status and the HER2 receptor status. Individuals were classified into 4 categories: HR+/HER2-, TN (triple negative), HR-/HER2+ (HER2-Overexpressing) and HR+/HER2+. The lymph node status was classified as being either N0 for absence cancer cells found in any nearby nodes or N+ for presence of cancer cells in the lymph nodes regardless of the location. Women were categorised into 3 groups for the tumour size T0+T1 (size ≤ 2cm), T2 (size between 2 and 5cm) and T3+T4 (size>5cm or extension either directly to the chest wall or to the skin).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.3 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A descriptive analysis was used to examine the demographic and clinical tumour characteristics and their distribution according to the 4 molecular breast cancer subtypes. A Chi-squared test was used to assess the association between the breast cancer subtypes and the different patient characteristics. Tests giving a p-value lower than 5% were considered to be significant. A multivariate analysis was conducted using a hierarchical polytomous regression for the multinomial outcomes for the cancer subtype and to take into account the aggregated data for the SES. This method was used to calculate the odds of having each of the subtypes compared with HR+/HER2-, after adjusting for the differences in age at diagnosis, tumour histoprognostic Scarff Bloom and Richardson (SBR) grade, tumour size and histological type in the model. Missing values were not included in our analysis and were omitted in the regression model. The class HR+/HER2- was selected as a reference class because this subtype is regarded as having a good prognosis in relation to the other subtypes [17].

Results

Patient characteristics

From 2003 to 2013, 4553 invasive breast cancer cases in the Côte d’Or breast cancer registry were eligible for the study. After extraction of our data, 229 cases had an undetermined molecular subtype due to missing data one or more of the receptors (HR or HER2). The remaining cases were then assigned a deprivation score using their address and the FEDI. The deprivation score for 164 cases was not able to be determined and were then omitted from the analysis due to lack of deprivation information on their place of residence. Our final analysis was carried out on 4160 women (Fig 1). Among the cases, HR+/HER2- were the predominant subtype and represented 70.1% of the total study population (3192 cases). This subtype is followed by the subtype HR+/HER2+ representing 11.6% (528 cases). The TN cases accounted for 8.9% (403 cases), and 4.4% of the cases were the HER2-Overexpressing subtype (201 cases). Table 1 provides a description of the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients by breast cancer subtype. The younger patients (<50 years) were found to have more frequently the TN subtype (11.7%), HR+/HER2+ (15.1%) and HER2-oOverexpressing (5.7%) subtypes when compared with the older patients. TN cases were significantly more likely to have high grade tumours (p< 0.0001). Similarly the earlier tumour stages had significantly higher proportions for the HR+/HER2- subtype compared to the other stages. In addition, the SBR grade I tumours were mainly found to be HR+/HER2- cases (85.7%) and there was a substantial amount of grade III tumours which were TN (28.1%). The tumours of size T3 (>5cm) were found to be more frequently TN cases (14.3%) compared to smaller tumours. A significantly greater proportion of the HR+/HER2+ cases were diagnosed during the first half of our study period (2003–2007) (p< 0.0001) (Fig 2).The least affluent SES quintile (Q1) represents 30% of women. Women with HER2-Overexpressing tumours were found to belong more frequently to the most affluent SES quintile (Q5) when compared to the other subtypes. Women with TN tumours were found the most frequently in middle SES quintile.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Flow chart for the selection of subject for the statistical analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170069.g001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Distribution of breast cancer diagnosis by tumour subtype and year of diagnosis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170069.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Characteristics of breast cancer subtypes of patients in Côte d’Or selected for the study (2003–2013).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170069.t001

Multivariate analysis

Table 2 shows the odds ratios for hierarchical multivariate polytomous regression analysis with HR+/HER2- as the reference category. No significant association was observed between SES and tumour subtype (p = 0.3956), However, we found that women older than 75 years are less likely to have a TN and HR+/HER2+ breast cancer (OR = 0.67; CI95% = [0.47–0.96]) and OR = 0.52; CI95% = [0.37–0.72] respectively). Women with lobular tumours were more significantly likely to be diagnosed with HR+/HER2- when compared to the other subtypes, in particular the TN (OR = 0.24; CI95% = [0.13–0.46]) and HER2-Overexpressing tumours (OR = 0.12; CI95% = [0.04–0.38]). Regarding the histopronostic SBR grade, HR negative subtypes (TN and HER-Overexpressing) versus HR+/HER2- had considerably greater odds to be grade III (TN OR = 40.06; CI95% = [23.71–67.71], and HER2-Overexpressing OR = 47.80; CI95% = [19.00–120.23]). This association was found to be less intense for the HR+/HER2+ subtype (OR = 4.59; CI95% = [3.37–6.26]). The odds of having TN and HER2-Overexpressing subtype versus HR+/HER2- doubles when the tumour is bigger than 5cm (T3+T4) compared to tumours 2cm or under (T0+T1) (OR = 2.27; CI95% = [1.19–4.33]). Regarding lymph nodes status, women with TN tumour subtype have significantly more N0 tumours when compared to HR+/HER2- subtype (OR = 0.71; CI95% = [0.54–0.92]). The odds of being diagnosed with the HR+/HER2+ subtype was significantly greater between 2003 and 2007 compared to the second half of our study period (OR = 1.99; CI95% = [1.63–2.43]).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Estimated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from hierarchical polytomous regression models of association between patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with breast cancer subtype (2003–2013).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170069.t002

Discussion

In light of previous studies [9–14], we suspected a possible association between the molecular breast cancer subtype and the SES among French women in the rural county of Côte d’Or. Our findings suggest an absence of such an association. However, in our study age was found to be a factor associated with the tumour subtype. Women below the age of 50 were more at risk for TN and HR+/HER2+ tumours. This finding coincides with results found in a previous study [10]. Women with SBR grade III tumours were found to be at a considerably much higher risk of being diagnosed with HR-negative tumours when compared to lower grade tumours. The positive association between tumour grade and tumour subtype is in agreement with the literature:. Moreover, this elevated risk of HR-negative tumours could be explained by the environmental exposures and lifestyle differences between women living in France and those observed in other studies. Lymph node involvement for the TN tumours follows the trends in other studies [18,19]. The frequency of the tumour type (lobular and ductal) is consistent with the literature and lobular tumours were associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of being diagnosed with HR-negative tumours (TN and HER2-Overexpressing) [20–22]. A strong association was found between the molecular subtype and the year of diagnosis. This trend was found to be most prominent in the HR+/Her2+ subtype with a significantly larger proportion of cases occurring in the first half of the study period. This is due to a temporary random misclassification issue encountered during 2003 and 2004 caused by an inadequately adopted procedure for receptor testing in certain pathology laboratories.

In our study, the overall SES of the cases was not found to be associated with the molecular subtype at diagnosis. This finding opposes our initial hypothesis that socioeconomic related factors such as obesity and parity led to an alteration of tumour biology through an increase in hormone secretion. The lack of an association between SES and tumour subtype is consistent with a study which shows that the incidence rate of HR-negative breast cancer subtype (TN and HER2-Overexpressing) is independent of SES [9]. In contrast, A study has reported that low SES is significantly associated with an increased risk for the TN subtype [6]. These findings suggest that non-genetic and non-biological factors in the low SES environment alter the tumour biology of these patients (parity, low physical activity) [23–26]. This variation in results could be explained by the different confounding factors taken into account in the various reports.

Some reports found an association between ethnicity and tumour subtype. This association persisted even after controlling for differences in SES [10–13,27]. A similar report studying ethnicity, SES and tumour subtype showed contrasting results. It was shown that low SES was associated with a higher prevalence of HR-negative cancers despite the race/ethnicity of the individual [14]. The Côte d’Or breast cancer registry is not authorised to collect data on patient race and ethnicity therefore this information was not available for the study. However, Côte d’Or is a French department known to have a large Caucasian population and thus the bias is kept to a minimum.

Obesity is a major factor associated with high poverty areas. Studies where an association between SES and subtype was observed, showed that obesity and dietary habits play big role in hormone receptor status [28–30]. In obese women, there is an increase in insulin secretion in the bloodstream which provokes inflammatory reactions resulting in an increase in cytokines and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) and the Tumour growth factor β (TGF-β). The latter disturbs the genomic stability through the activation of cell-signalling pathways involved in cell proliferation such as the PI3K-AKT pathway [31–33]. As a result, obesity has been identified as the key component behind the association between SES and tumour subtype. We would have liked to take into account this factor in our study but we lacked information on individual risk factors (reproductive history and breast feeding, parity, diet, body mass index, alcohol use, oral contraceptives and hormone replacement treatments) for breast cancer and therefore we were not able to adjust on them in our regression model. A study found an association between SES and molecular subtypes. This association could be explained by differences in lifestyles of the women of different socioeconomic strata [14], whereas other reports suggest that this association is due to innate biological and genetic differences among women with a very pronounced difference between black and white women [34,35].

There are several contradictory findings in the literature concerning the association between SES and breast cancer subtype. Further research is required to confirm these hypotheses. In particular, ethnicity and other risk factors like body fat need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the impact of SES.

We acknowledge that our study has some limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the data. First, it is subject to all the inherent biases associated with its retrospective design. However, these biases are limited as we had very few missing data as a breast cancer registry. Secondly, The French EDI is an ecological index used as a proxy for individual SES, and could potentially assign incorrect SES for a given individual. However, studies have shown that in France there is a correlation between the socioeconomic characteristics measured on the individual level and the IRIS level [36]. In addition, IRISs are very small geographic units (approximately 2000 inhabitants) which therefore lessen the ecological bias in our study. The smaller the geographic zone, the greater the accuracy of SES measures will be.

Finally, the major, the strength of our study lies in the use of population-based data of the Côte d’Or breast cancer registry and its extensive availability for specific tumour data like the hormone receptors and HER2 receptor status. The registry respects a strict data quality control policy which includes regular checking to ensure the complete follow-up for each patient and the use of crossing information sources. The comprehensiveness and the great quality of our data ensure that there is no selection bias, contrary to clinical trials or hospital cohorts in which patients are highly selected. Our population could therefore be considered representative of French women.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite the adjustment of socio-demographic (age) and tumour clinical characteristics, there was no significant association found between SES and tumour subtype in French women at diagnosis of breast cancer. In light of the contradictory finding in previous studies, further studies are needed to clarify the mechanisms in the populations where this association was found significant. Special consideration should be given to confounding factors and the use of individual socioeconomic data.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ludovic Bouzigues and Samuel Guinchard for data collection and François Cousin for reviewing the manuscript.

Author Contributions

1. Conceptualization: AA AB PA.

2. Formal analysis: AA AB PA.

3. Funding acquisition: MP PA.

4. Investigation: AA MP PA.

5. Methodology: AA AB PA.

6. Project administration: AA AB PA.

7. Resources: AA MP PA.

8. Supervision: AA AB PA.

9. Visualization: AA PA.

10. Writing – original draft: AA AB MC LL TSD PA.

11. Writing – review & editing: AA AB MC LL TSD PA LA ID PR AD MP.

Citation: Auguste A, Cortet M, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Launay L, Arnould L, Desmoulins I, et al. (2017) Breast cancer subtype of French women is not influenced by socioeconomic status: A population-based-study. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0170069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170069

References

1. IARC. Globocan: Incidence mondiale du cancer de sein [Internet]. [cited 2015 Oct 1]. Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr223_E.pdf

2. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT, Mukesh BN. Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res. 2009 Jun;7(1–2):4–13. pmid:19574486

3. Brown M, Tsodikov A, Bauer KR, Parise CA, Caggiano V. The role of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in the survival of women with estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative, invasive breast cancer: the California Cancer Registry, 1999–2004. Cancer. 2008 Feb 15;112(4):737–47. pmid:18189290

4. Bertaut A, Mounier M, Desmoulins I, Guiu S, Beltjens F, Darut-Jouve A, et al. Stage IV breast cancer: a population-based study about prognostic factors according to HER2 and HR status. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015 Nov 1;24(6):920–8.

5. Dietze EC, Sistrunk C, Miranda-Carboni G, O’Regan R, Seewaldt VL. Triple-negative breast cancer in African-American women: disparities versus biology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015 Apr;15(4):248–54. pmid:25673085

6. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007 May 1;109(9):1721–8. pmid:17387718

7. Danforth DNJ. Disparities in breast cancer outcomes between Caucasian and African American women: a model for describing the relationship of biological and nonbiological factors. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(3):208. pmid:23826992

8. Vona-Davis L, Rose DP. The influence of socioeconomic disparities on breast cancer tumor biology and prognosis: a review. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009 Jun;18(6):883–93.

9. Akinyemiju TF, Pisu M, Waterbor JW, Altekruse SF. Socioeconomic status and incidence of breast cancer by hormone receptor subtype. Springerplus. 2015;4:508. pmid:26405628

10. Sineshaw HM, Gaudet M, Ward EM, Flanders WD, Desantis C, Lin CC, et al. Association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer subtypes in the National Cancer Data Base (2010–2011). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Jun;145(3):753–63. pmid:24794028

11. Parise C, Caggiano V. Disparities in the risk of the ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes among Asian Americans in California. Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 Oct;38(5):556–62. pmid:25172158

12. Banegas MP, Tao L, Altekruse S, Anderson WF, John EM, Clarke CA, et al. Heterogeneity of breast cancer subtypes and survival among Hispanic women with invasive breast cancer in California. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Apr;144(3):625–34. pmid:24658879

13. Parise CA, Caggiano V. The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Racial/Ethnic Disparities among the ER/PR/HER2 Breast Cancer Subtypes. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;2015:813456. pmid:26339244

14. Andaya AA, Enewold L, Horner M- J, Jatoi I, Shriver CD, Zhu K. Socioeconomic disparities and breast cancer hormone receptor status. Cancer Causes Control. 2012 Jun;23(6):951–8. pmid:22527173

15. Pornet C, Delpierre C, Dejardin O, Grosclaude P, Launay L, Guittet L, et al. Construction of an adaptable European transnational ecological deprivation index: the French version. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Nov;66(11):982–9. pmid:22544918

16. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1471–4. pmid:20180029

17. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer J-U, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1796–804. pmid:22508812

18. Holm-Rasmussen EV, Jensen M- B, Balslev E, Kroman N, Tvedskov TF. Reduced risk of axillary lymphatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jan;149(1):229–36. pmid:25488719

19. Gangi A, Mirocha J, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Triple-negative breast cancer is not associated with increased likelihood of nodal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Dec;21(13):4098–103. pmid:25155393

20. Dossus L, Benusiglio PR. Lobular breast cancer: incidence and genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Breast Cancer Research. 2015;17:37. pmid:25848941

21. Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003 Mar 19;289(11):1421–4. pmid:12636465

22. Titloye NA, Foster A, Omoniyi-Esan GO, Komolafe AO, Daramola AO, Adeoye OA, et al. Histological Features and Tissue Microarray Taxonomy of Nigerian Breast Cancer Reveal Predominance of the High-Grade Triple-Negative Phenotype. Pathobiology. 2016;83(1):24–32. pmid:26730581

23. Ambrosone CB, Zirpoli G, Ruszczyk M, Shankar J, Hong C- C, McIlwain D, et al. Parity and breastfeeding among African-American women: differential effects on breast cancer risk by estrogen receptor status in the Women’s Circle of Health Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2014 Feb;25(2):259–65. pmid:24249438

24. Ambrosone CB, Zirpoli G, Hong C-C, Yao S, Troester MA, Bandera EV, et al. Important Role of Menarche in Development of Estrogen Receptor-Negative Breast Cancer in African American Women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Sep;107(9).

25. Redondo CM, Gago-Domínguez M, Ponte SM, Castelo ME, Jiang X, García AA, et al. Breast feeding, parity and breast cancer subtypes in a Spanish cohort. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e40543. pmid:22792365

26. Ritte R, Tikk K, Lukanova A, Tjønneland A, Olsen A, Overvad K, et al. Reproductive factors and risk of hormone receptor positive and negative breast cancer: a cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:584. pmid:24321460

27. Sturtz LA, Melley J, Mamula K, Shriver CD, Ellsworth RE. Outcome disparities in African American women with triple negative breast cancer: a comparison of epidemiological and molecular factors between African American and Caucasian women with triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:62. pmid:24495414

28. Dunn BK, Agurs-Collins T, Browne D, Lubet R, Johnson KA. Health disparities in breast cancer: biology meets socioeconomic status. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Jun;121(2):281–92. pmid:20437200

29. Bandera EV, Chandran U, Hong C- C, Troester MA, Bethea TN, Adams-Campbell LL, et al. Obesity, body fat distribution, and risk of breast cancer subtypes in African American women participating in the AMBER Consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Apr;150(3):655–66. pmid:25809092

30. Crispo A, Montella M, Buono G, Grimaldi M, D’Aiuto M, Capasso I, et al. Body weight and risk of molecular breast cancer subtypes among postmenopausal Mediterranean women. Current Research in Translational Medicine. 2016 Mar;64(1):15–20. pmid:27140595

31. Hartman ZC, Poage GM, den Hollander P, Tsimelzon A, Hill J, Panupinthu N, et al. Growth of triple-negative breast cancer cells relies upon coordinate autocrine expression of the proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8. Cancer Res. 2013 Jun 1;73(11):3470–80. pmid:23633491

32. Lu P, Weaver VM, Werb Z. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J Cell Biol. 2012 Feb 20;196(4):395–406. pmid:22351925

33. Lyons TR, O’Brien J, Borges VF, Conklin MW, Keely PJ, Eliceiri KW, et al. Postpartum mammary gland involution drives progression of ductal carcinoma in situ through collagen and COX-2. Nat Med. 2011 Sep;17(9):1109–15. pmid:21822285

34. Greenup R, Buchanan A, Lorizio W, Rhoads K, Chan S, Leedom T, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations among women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a genetic counseling cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct;20(10):3254–8. pmid:23975317

35. Zheng Y, Zhang J, Niu Q, Huo D, Olopade OI. Novel germline PALB2 truncating mutations in African American breast cancer patients. Cancer. 2012 Mar 1;118(5):1362–70. pmid:21932393

36. Ouedraogo S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Roussot A, Pornet C, Sarlin N, Lunaud P, et al. European transnational ecological deprivation index and participation in population-based breast cancer screening programmes in France. Prev Med. 2014 Jun;63:103–8. pmid:24345603