Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: This study analyzes the association of body mass index (BMI) and prognostically relevant breast cancer (BC) characteristics in a country that has been rather spared of the global obesity epidemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on 20-year data (1999-2009, n = 1,414) of the prospective relational BC database of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, the associations between BMI, tumor size and stage, histological subtype, grading, hormonal receptor status, HER2 status and 'triple-negative' status were evaluated. Multivariate analysis considered BMI and patient's age. RESULTS: The association between increasing BMI and the above-mentioned variables were as follows (results described in each case: Beta-coefficient or odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value): tumor size, (1) entire cohort: 0.03 (0.01-0.05), p < 0.001, (2) tumor found by self-palpation: 0.05 (0.03-0.07), p < 0.001, (3) tumor found by radiological examination: 0.03 (0-0.07), p = 0.044; advanced TNM stage: 1.16 (1.02-1.31), p = 0.022; histological subtype: 1.04 (0.89-1.22), p = 0.602; unfavorable grading: 1.11 (1.00-1.25), p = 0.057; positive estrogen receptor status: 0.95 (0.83-1.09), p = 0.459; positive HER2 status: 0.92 (0.74-1.15), p = 0.467; presence of a 'triple-negative' carcinoma: 1.19 (0.93-1.52), p = 0.165. Consideration of only postmenopausal BC patients (n = 1,063) did attenuate the results, but did not change the direction of the associations with BMI. CONCLUSION: BMI was positively associated with TNM stage, grading and tumor size for tumors that were found by self-detection, as well as for those lesions detected by radiological breast examinations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eichholzer et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: