Abstract
Mechanisms underlying the poor breast cancer prognosis among obese women are unresolved. DNA methylation levels are linked to obesity and to breast cancer survival. We hypothesized that obesity may work in conjunction with the epigenome to alter prognosis. Using a population-based sample of women diagnosed with first primary breast cancer, we examined modification of the obesity-mortality association by DNA methylation. In-person interviews were conducted approximately 3 months after diagnosis. Weight and height were assessed [to estimate body mass index (BMI)], and blood samples collected. Promoter methylation of 13 breast cancer-related genes was assessed in archived tumor by methylation-specific PCR and Methyl Light. Global methylation in white blood cell DNA was assessed by analysis of long interspersed elements-1 (LINE-1) and with the lumino-metric methylation assay (LUMA). Vital status among 1308 patients (with any methylation biomarker and complete BMI assessment) was determined after approximately 15 years of follow-up (N = 194/441 deaths due to breast cancer-specific/all-cause mortality). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using two-sided p values of 0.05. Breast cancer-specific mortality was higher among obese (BMI ≥ 30) patients with promoter methylation in APC (HR = 2.47; 95 % CI = 1.43–4.27) and TWIST1 (HR = 4.25; 95 % CI = 1.43–12.70) in breast cancer tissue. Estimates were similar, but less pronounced, for all-cause mortality. Increased all-cause (HR =1.81; 95 % CI = 1.19–2.74) and breast cancer-specific (HR = 2.61; 95 % CI = 1.45–4.69) mortality was observed among obese patients with the lowest LUMA levels. The poor breast cancer prognosis associated with obesity may depend on methylation profiles, which warrants further investigation.
Keywords: Body mass index, Epigenetics, Methylation, Breast cancer, Survival
Introduction
Breast cancer (BC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (US), with an estimated 40,000 deaths occurring in 2015 [1]. Overweight and obesity are associated with poor BC prognosis [2], but the mechanisms underlying this association are unresolved. In the US, one-third of the population is obese [3], and approximately 3.1 million are BC survivors [4]. Thus, understanding how obesity influences BC prognosis could have public health and clinical impact.
Epigenetics is an attractive source of novel biomarkers which exploits the stability of DNA, the reversible nature of epigenetic aberrancies, and can be measured in a range of tissues, including blood [5]. Changes to the epigenome could serve as a useful target for predicting BC prognosis. DNA methylation has been the most studied epigenetic mechanism in human populations and includes both hypermethylation and hypomethylation [6]. Gene-specific methylation in target tissues has been widely investigated, and hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes has been associated with BC prognosis in several studies, including our own [7, 8]. Global DNA hypomethylation has been evaluated to a lesser extent but is a common phenomenon in carcinogenesis [9] and has similarly been linked to poor BC prognosis [10].
Given BC prognosis is likely influenced by multiple factors, it is plausible that obesity works in conjunction with the epigenome to alter prognosis. Specifically, adiposity may promote tumor progression through the production of excess estrogen [11], which may induce promoter hypermethylation of several important tumor suppressor genes [12]. Despite the strong biologic plausibility, to our knowledge, no epidemiologic study has examined the interaction between obesity and DNA methylation on BC prognosis. This study examined, in a population-based sample of women with first primary BC, whether the association between obesity and BC mortality was modified by gene-promoter methylation of a panel of 13 BC-related genes measured in tumor tissue (APC, BRCA1, CCND2, CDH1, DAPK1, ESR1, GSTP1, HIN1, CDKN2A, PGR, RARβ, RASSF1A, and TWIST1). We also determined whether the obesity-mortality association was modified by global DNA methylation using two methods to assess white blood cell methylation: long interspersed elements-1 (LINE-1) which approximates levels in repetitive elements [13] and the luminometric methylation assay (LUMA) which estimates methylation at CCGG sites [14]. We hypothesized that obesity and aberrant methylation would work synergistically to increase both all-cause and BC-specific mortality following a diagnosis of BC.
Methods
This project draws on the resources of the follow-up component of Long Island. Breast Cancer Study Project (LIBCSP) is a population-based study. Details of the study participants and design for this component have been previously described [15–17]. Written informed consent was obtained for all subjects, and Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from all participating institutions.
Study participants
Eligible participants for the LIBCSP follow-up study were English-speaking women residing in Nassau and Suffolk counties of Long Island, NY, who were newly diagnosed with a first primary in situ or invasive BC between August 1, 1996 and July 31, 1997. Women were identified using rapid case ascertainment via daily or weekly contact with pathology departments of all 28 hospitals on Long Island and three tertiary care hospitals in New York City. The final LIBCSP follow-up sample consisted of 1508 women with BC, of which 1273 (84 %) had invasive BC as confirmed by review of the medical records. At diagnosis, participants were aged 20–98 years and predominately postmenopausal (67 %) and white (94 %), which was consistent with the underlying racial/ethnic distribution in these counties at the time of data collection.
Data collection
Obesity and other covariates
Self-reported weight and height in the year prior to diagnosis were assessed as part of the baseline interviewer-administered structured 100-min questionnaire, which was completed, on average, within 3 months of diagnosis. These assessments were used to calculate the body mass index (BMI) for each participant [weight (kg)/height (m2)], as a measure of obesity. Participants were additionally queried on their demographic characteristics (including age, race/ ethnicity, income, and education), medical histories (including family history of BC, exogenous hormone use, and mammography screening), and other potential prognostic factors as previously detailed [15–17]. Medical records were also abstracted for clinically relevant prognostic factors (including treatment and hormone receptor status).
Medical records data
As part of the LIBCSP protocol, medical records were abstracted at baseline and again at the 5-year follow-up to determine tumor characteristics (e.g., ER/PR status, tumor size, and nodal involvement) and treatment regimen of the first primary BC diagnosis.
Gene-specific promoter methylation
Archived FFPE tumor tissue of the first primary BC was obtained, and DNA extraction was performed, as previously described [18]. Thirteen genes known to be involved in breast carcinogenesis, and frequently methylated in promoter regions, were selected for assessing interactions with obesity. Promoter methylation of ERa, PR, and BRCA1 was determined by methylation-specific (MSP)-PCR and was dichotomized (i.e., methylated vs. unmethylated) based on the presence or absence of the PCR band [18, 19]. Methylation status of the 10 remaining genes was assessed by the Methyl Light assay [20, 21]. The percentage of methylation was calculated by the 2−ΔΔCT method, where ΔΔCT = (CT,Target − CT,Actin)sample − (CT,Target − CT,Actin)full methylated DNA [22] and multiplying by 100. Using a 4 % cut-off, we dichotomized into methylated or unmethylated cases as previously reported [23].
Global methylation
For 73.1 % of women with BC, trained phlebotomists obtained a non-fasting 40 mL blood sample at the baseline interview, and DNA was isolated as previously described [24]. Details of LUMA and LINE-1 assessment in the LIBCSP have been described previously [14]. Briefly, LUMA followed the modified protocol described by Bjornsson et al. [25] and was expressed as a percentage based on the following equation: methylation methylation(%) = [1 − (HpaII ΣG/ΣT)/(MspI ΣG/ΣT)]* 100 [25]. Four CpG sites in the promoter region of LINE-1 were assessed using a pre-validated pyrosequencing-based methylation assay [20] and were individually analyzed as a T/C single-nucleotide polymorphism using QCpG software (Qiagen). These data were subsequently averaged to provide an overall percentage 5mC status.
Mortality
Vital status through the end of 2011 was determined through the NDI as previously reported [26]. Briefly, after approximately 14.7 (0.2–15.4) years of follow-up, among the 1308 patients with any global or gene-specific methylation assessments and complete BMI data, we identified 441 who died from all causes and 194 whose deaths were related to BC. BC-related deaths were determined using the International Classification of Diseases (codes 174.9 or C-50.9).
Statistical analysis
Among 1308 women with any methylation biomarker and complete BMI assessment, Cox proportional hazards regression [27] was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for the association between BMI, methylation status (global and gene-specific), and mortality (all-cause and BC-specific) over the follow-up period of more than 15 years. All statistical test were two-sides (a priori p = 0.05). The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using exposure interactions with time [27]. We observed non-proportionality for CDKN2A, PR, and RARβ; as such, exposure-time interactions were included in each of the models for those genes [27]. We observed no violations with remaining genes, global markers, or BMI.
For interaction analyses, we assessed BMI continuously and using the standard World Health Organization classifications (<25.0 kg/m2; 25.0–29.9 kg/m2; and ≥30 kg/m2). Methylation of gene promoters were classified as methylated or unmethylated as described above and global methylation markers (LUMA and LINE-1) were dichotomized at the median. Effect measure modification on the multiplicative scale between BMI and methylation was evaluated using the likelihood ratio test with a 0.05 significance level, comparing proportional hazards regression models with and without the cross-product terms [28].
All models were initially adjusted for age at diagnosis (continuous). We further considered inclusion of other covariates in multivariate models if they were related to either the exposure, modifier, or outcome. These variables included family history of BC (yes/no), history of benign breast disease (yes/no), smoking (ever/never), and race (white, black, and other). Covariates were removed from the multivariate model using backward elimination. Variables remained in the final model if their exclusion changed the effect estimate by > 10 % [31]. None of these covariates met our criteria and thus all models were adjusted for age at diagnosis only.
Given our baseline BMI measures reflects body size in the year prior to diagnosis, we did not consider tumor characteristics (e.g., tumor stage, grade, size, and nodal involvement)or hormone receptor status as potential confounders of the association between BMI, methylation, and mortality. These covariates are on the causal pathway between BMI and survival and adjustment for them would result in biased parameter estimates [29, 30]. Even upon adding hormone receptor status (any ER/PR positive vs. ER and PR negative) to the multivariate model, we observed no substantial difference in the effect estimates. Further, our findings restricted to women with invasive tumors did not vary substantially from those among all women, likely due to the low proportion of in situ cases (~15 %) in our study population. Our analyses therefore include both invasive and non-invasive cases. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Results
Distribution of clinical characteristics
Table 1 shows the distribution of clinical characteristics among the 1308 women diagnosed with first primary BC with any information on DNA methylation status (gene-specific or global methylation) and BMI. At diagnosis, most patients had a BMI of ≥25, no family history of BC, tumor size <2 cm, and no nodal involvement. The distributions of clinical characteristics by gene-specific methylation marker have been previously described [7, 8].
Table 1.
Covariate | N (%) |
---|---|
Age at diagnosis | |
<50 years | 373 (28.5) |
≥50 years | 935 (71.5) |
Menopausal status | |
Premenopausal | 401 (31.3) |
Postmenopausal | 880 (68.7) |
Family history of breast cancer | |
No | 1025 (80.8) |
Yes | 243 (19.2) |
Body mass index (BMI) | |
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 584 (44.7) |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 423 (32.3) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 301 (23.0) |
Cancer type | |
In situ | 203 (15.5) |
Invasive | 1105 (84.5) |
Estrogen receptor status | |
Positive | 653 (74.5) |
Negative | 223 (25.5) |
Progesterone receptor status | |
Positive | 564 (64.4) |
Negative | 312 (35.6) |
Tumor size | |
<2 cm | 473 (65.9) |
≥2 cm | 245 (34.1) |
Nodal involvement | |
0 | 548 (75.9) |
1 | 174 (24.1) |
Treatment type | |
No chemotherapy | 538 (60.1) |
Chemotherapy | 357 (39.9) |
No radiation | 356 (39.6) |
Radiation | 542 (60.4) |
No hormone therapy | 335 (38.0) |
Hormone therapy | 547 (62.0) |
BMI, gene-promoter methylation, and global methylation: associations with all-cause and BC-specific mortality
In Table 2, we provide effect estimates for obesity and methylation markers, separately, in association with mortality after approximately 15 years of follow-up among our LIBCSP cohort of 1308 women newly diagnosed with first primary BC in 1996–1997. These LIBCSP-based associations were previously reported for obesity with follow-up through 2002 [32], and for the gene-specific methylation markers with follow-up through 2005 [7, 8], but have now been updated with extended follow-up through 2011. We also newly describe associations between global methylation markers (LUMA and LINE-1) and mortality through 2011. Our updated estimates suggest increased mortality in association with BMI and most methylation markers and are similar to the previously reported estimates in this same cohort based on shorter follow-up time [7, 8, 32] (Table 2).
Table 2.
All-cause mortality |
Breast cancer-specific mortality |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | |
Gene methylationa,b | ||||||
APC | ||||||
Unmethylated | 138/413 | 1.00 | Reference | 52/413 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 148/387 | 1.17 | (0.93, 1.48) | 72/387 | 1.53 | (1.07, 2.20) |
BRCA1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 113/347 | 1.00 | Reference | 37/347 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 190/504 | 1.30 | (1.03, 1.64) | 92/504 | 1.78 | (1.22, 2.62) |
CDH1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 255/721 | 1.00 | Reference | 107/721 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 19/44 | 1.35 | (0.85, 2.15) | 7/44 | 1.22 | (0.57, 2.63) |
CYCLIND2 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 207/615 | 1.00 | Reference | 89/615 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 67/150 | 1.19 | (0.90, 1.57) | 25/150 | 1.27 | (0.81, 1.99) |
DAPK | ||||||
Unmethylated | 231/657 | 1.00 | Reference | 94/657 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 43/108 | 0.99 | (0.71, 1.38) | 20/108 | 1.25 | (0.77, 2.04) |
ESR1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 163/460 | 1.00 | Reference | 67/460 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 139/383 | 1.06 | (0.84, 1.33) | 62/383 | 1.13 | (0.80, 1.60) |
GSTP1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 177/552 | 1.00 | Reference | 71/552 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 97/213 | 1.56 | (1.22, 2.00) | 43/213 | 1.85 | (1.27, 2.71) |
HIN1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 97/284 | 1.00 | Reference | 38/284 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 177/481 | 1.09 | (0.85, 1.40) | 76/481 | 1.18 | (0.80, 1.74) |
CDKN2A | ||||||
Unmethylated | 267/747 | 1.00 | Reference | 111/747 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 12/30 | 5.30d | (2.03, 13.81) | 10/30 | 2.28 | (1.19, 4.35) |
PR | ||||||
Unmethylated | 260/749 | 1.00 | Reference | 103/749 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 43/102 | 1.36 | (0.98, 1.88) | 26/102 | 0.70d | (0.30, 1.63) |
RARB | ||||||
Unmethylated | 193/554 | 1.00 | Reference | 73/554 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 81/211 | 1.89d | (1.14, 3.14) | 41/211 | 1.50 | (1.02, 2.20) |
RASSF1A | ||||||
Unmethylated | 34/113 | 1.00 | Reference | 13/113 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 240/652 | 1.21 | (0.84, 1.74) | 101/652 | 1.42 | (0.80, 2.53) |
TWIST1 | ||||||
Unmethylated | 223/649 | 1.00 | Reference | 91/649 | 1.00 | Reference |
Methylated | 51/116 | 1.25 | (0.91, 1.70) | 23/116 | 1.58 | (1.00, 2.50) |
Global methylation | ||||||
LUMA | ||||||
<Median (0.556) | 124/366 | 1.00 | Reference | 58/366 | 1.00 | Reference |
≥Median | 216/689 | 0.94 | (0.75, 1.18) | 90/689 | 0.81 | (0.58, 1.13) |
LINE1 | ||||||
≥Median | 160/517 | 1.00 | Reference | 66/517 | 1.00 | Reference |
<Median (78.735) | 183/547 | 1.06 | (0.85, 1.31) | 83/574 | 1.18 | (0.86, 1.63) |
BMIc | ||||||
All women | ||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 170/584 | 1.00 | Reference | 77/584 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 142/423 | 0.98 | (0.79, 1.23) | 59/423 | 1.05 | (0.75 1.49) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 129/301 | 1.36 | (1.08, 1.71) | 58/301 | 1.63 | (1.15, 2.30) |
Xu et al. [18] previously reported age-adjusted associations for APC, BRCA1, and CDKN2A, with follow-up through 2005 [7]
Cho et al. 2010 previously reported age-adjusted associations for CYCLIND2, DAPK, GSTP1, HIN, RARβ, RASSF1A, and TWIST1, with follow-up through 2005 [8]
Cleveland et al. 2007 previously reported age- and hypertension-adjusted associations for pre- and postmenopausal pre-diagnostic BMI, with follow-up though 2002 [32]
Proportional hazard assumption violated. Exposure*time interactions (p < 0.05) included in model
Associations between BMI, gene-promoter methylation, and mortality
As shown in Table 3, the association between obesity and mortality following a BC diagnosis was modified by promoter methylation status of two genes, APC and TWIST1 (p < 0.05 for multiplicative interaction). Among obese patients (defined as a BMI ≥ 30) with an unmethylated APC promoter, all-cause mortality was not increased (HR = 0.99; 95 % CI = 0.64–1.53). In contrast, the corresponding effect estimate for methylated APC was increased two-fold (HR = 1.97; 95 % CI = 1.33–2.09). Similar, patterns of association were observed for breast cancer-specific mortality, but the effect sizes were more pronounced (unmethylated APC HR = 0.81; 95 % CI = 0.38–1.76 vs. methylated APC HR = 2.47; 95 % CI = 1.43–4.27).
Table 3.
All-cause mortality |
Breast cancer-specific mortality |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unmethylated | Methylated | Unmethylated | Methylated | |||||||||
Gene promoter | ||||||||||||
Body Mass Index (BMI) categories | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | HR | 95 % CI | |
APC | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 55/195 | 1.00 | Reference | 52/158 | 1.00 | Reference | 25/195 | 1.00 | Reference | 23/158 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 49/119 | 1.26 | (0.86, 1.87) | 44/131 | 0.99 | (0.66, 1.47) | 17/119 | 1.28 | (0.69, 2.40) | 20/131 | 1.03 | (0.57, 1.88) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 32/94 | 0.99 | (0.64, 1.53) | 51/96 | 1.97 | (1.33, 2.09) | 9/94 | 0.81 | (0.38, 1.76) | 29/96 | 2.47 | (1.43, 4.27) |
p interaction | 0.001 | 0.003 | ||||||||||
BRCA1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 45/153 | 1.00 | Reference | 71/221 | 1.00 | Reference | 18/153 | 1.00 | Reference | 33/221 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 34/104 | 0.96 | (0.61, 1.49) | 63/163 | 1.11 | (0.79, 1.57) | 9/104 | 0.78 | (0.35, 1.75) | 29/163 | 1.24 | (0.75, 2.05) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 33/88 | 1.20 | (0.77, 1.88) | 54/114 | 1.45 | (1.02, 2.06) | 10/88 | 1.09 | (0.50, 2.39) | 29/114 | 1.89 | (1.14, 3.12) |
p interaction | 0.489 | 0.151 | ||||||||||
CDH1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 98/319 | 1.00 | Reference | 7/19 | 1.00 | Reference | 44/319 | 1.00 | Reference | <5/19 | Not estimateda | |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 78/218 | 1.03 | (0.77, 1.39) | 7/16 | 1.38 | (0.47, 4.01) | 26/218 | 0.92 | (0.56, 1.49) | <5/16 | not estimated | |
BMI > 30 kg/m2 | 76/177 | 1.34 | (1.00, 1.81) | 5/9 | 2.15 | (0.67, 6.95) | 36/177 | 1.64 | (1.05, 2.56) | <5/9 | Not estimated | |
p interaction | 0.400 | - | ||||||||||
CYCLIND2 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 83/276 | 1.00 | Reference | 22/62 | 1.00 | Reference | 40/276 | 1.00 | Reference | 6/62 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 63/184 | 1.04 | (0.75, 1.45) | 22/50 | 1.07 | (0.59, 1.94) | 20/184 | 0.80 | (0.47, 1.36) | 9/50 | 2.01 | (0.70, 5.72) |
BMI > 30 kg/m2 | 59/149 | 1.30 | (0.93, 1.81) | 22/37 | 1.64 | (0.91, 2.96) | 28/149 | 1.42 | (0.87, 2.31) | 10/37 | 3.41 | (1.21, 9.59) |
p interaction | 0.480 | 0.084 | ||||||||||
DAPK | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 92/297 | 1.00 | Reference | 13/41 | 1.00 | Reference | 39/297 | 1.00 | Reference | 7/41 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 70/198 | 0.99 | (0.73, 1.35) | 15/36 | 1.45 | (0.69, 3.05) | 22/198 | 0.88 | (0.52, 1.48) | 7/36 | 1.35 | (0.47, 3.86) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 67/156 | 1.33 | (0.97, 1.82) | 14/30 | 1.63 | (0.77, 3.47) | 32/156 | 1.69 | (1.05, 2.70) | 6/30 | 1.50 | (0.50, 4.50) |
p interaction | 0.353 | 0.347 | ||||||||||
ESR1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 57/195 | 1.00 | Reference | 58/175 | 1.00 | Reference | 30/195 | 1.00 | Reference | 21/175 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 55/153 | 1.04 | (0.72, 1.51) | 42/110 | 1.13 | (0.76, 1.69) | 17/153 | 0.78 | (0.43, 1.43) | 21/110 | 1.61 | (0.88, 2.95) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 49/108 | 1.53 | (1.04, 2.24) | 38/94 | 1.15 | (0.77, 1.74) | 20/108 | 1.48 | (0.84, 2.62) | 19/94 | 1.67 | (0.89, 3.12) |
p interaction | 0.202 | 0.082 | ||||||||||
GSTP1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 65/247 | 1.00 | Reference | 40/91 | 1.00 | Reference | 25/247 | 1.00 | Reference | 21/91 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 56/169 | 1.14 | (0.80, 1.63) | 29/65 | 0.89 | (0.55, 1.44) | 19/169 | 1.16 | (0.64, 2.12) | 20/65 | 0.70 | (0.3, 1.48) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 54/130 | 1.54 | (1.08, 2.21) | 27/56 | 1.07 | (0.65, 1.74) | 26/130 | 2.12 | (1.22, 3.68) | 12/56 | 1.05 | (0.52, 2.14) |
p interaction | 0.192 | 0.080 | ||||||||||
HIN1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 47/140 | 1.00 | Reference | 58/198 | 1.00 | Reference | 17/140 | 1.00 | Reference | 29/198 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 28/78 | 1.00 | (0.63, 1.60) | 57/156 | 1.10 | (0.76, 1.59) | 12/78 | 1.25 | (0.59, 2.62) | 17/156 | 0.82 | (0.45, 1.49) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 21/63 | 0.95 | (0.57, 1.59) | 60/123 | 1.65 | (1.15, 2.36) | 9/63 | 1.12 | (0.50, 2.53) | 29/123 | 1.95 | (1.16, 3.28) |
p interaction | 0.077 | 0.071 | ||||||||||
CDKN2A | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 102/334 | 1.00 | Reference | <5/8 | Not estimated | 45/334 | 1.00 | Reference | <5/8 | Not estimated | ||
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 86/226 | 1.11 | (0.83, 1.48) | 6/16 | Not estimated | 31/226 | 1.09 | (0.69, 1.73) | 6/16 | Not estimated | ||
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 76/180 | 1.37 | (1.02, 1.84) | <5/6 | Not estimated | 34/180 | 1.56 | (1.00, 2.44) | <5/6 | nOt estimated | ||
p interaction | - | - | ||||||||||
PR | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 94/321 | 1.00 | Reference | 22/53 | 1.00 | Reference | 37/321 | 1.00 | Reference | 14/53 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 85/238 | 1.07 | (0.79, 1.43) | 12/29 | 1.33 | (0.65, 2.71) | 31/238 | 1.23 | (0.76, 2.00) | 7/29 | 1.05 | (0.42, 2.61) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 78/183 | 1.40 | (1.04, 1.89) | 9/19 | 1.15 | (0.53, 2.50) | 34/183 | 1.91 | (1.19, 3.07) | 5/19 | 1.09 | (0.39, 3.05) |
p interaction | 0.400 | 0.286 | ||||||||||
RARB | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 75/242 | 1.00 | Reference | 30/96 | 1.00 | Reference | 30/242 | 1.00 | Reference | 16/96 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 57/166 | 1.01 | (0.72, 1.43) | 28/68 | 1.18 | (0.70, 1.97) | 15/166 | 0.77 | (0.41, 1.44) | 14/68 | 1.35 | (0.65, 2.79) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 58/139 | 1.28 | (0.91, 1.81) | 23/47 | 1.66 | (0.96, 2.85) | 27/139 | 1.64 | (0.97, 2.77) | 11/47 | 1.81 | (0.84, 3.90) |
p interaction | 0.434 | 0.284 | ||||||||||
RASSF1A | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 18/51 | 1.00 | Reference | 87/287 | 1.00 | Reference | 6/51 | 1.00 | Reference | 40/287 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 7/29 | 0.61 | (0.25, 1.49) | 78/205 | 1.15 | (0.84, 1.55) | 2/29 | 0.57 | (0.11, 2.91) | 27/205 | 1.02 | (0.63, 1.67) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 9/32 | 0.76 | (0.34, 1.70) | 72/154 | 1.53 | (1.12, 2.09) | 5/32 | 1.28 | (0.38, 4.36) | 33/154 | 1.77 | (1.12, 2.82) |
p interaction | 0.050 | 0.355 | ||||||||||
TWIST1 | ||||||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 93/291 | 1.00 | Reference | 12/47 | 1.00 | Reference | 40/291 | 1.00 | Reference | 6/47 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 63/191 | 0.91 | (0.66, 1.25) | 22/43 | 2.12 | (1.04, 4.31) | 19/191 | 0.70 | (0.41, 1.22) | 10/43 | 2.49 | (0.90, 6.86) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 65/162 | 1.19 | (0.87, 1.63) | 16/24 | 3.21 | (1.51, 6.83) | 31/162 | 1.39 | (0.87, 2.24) | 7/24 | 4.25 | (1.43, 12.70) |
p interaction | 0.010 | 0.015 |
Point estimate was not calculated because cell sizes less than five
For TWIST1, we observed a more than three-fold increased risk of dying at the end of follow-up among obese patients with a methylated TWIST1 promoter (HR = 3.21; 95 % CI = 1.51–6.83), whereas the corresponding effect estimate for an unmethylated TWIST1 promoter was less pronounced (HR = 1.19; 95 % CI = 0.87–1.63). A similar, but stronger, association between obesity, TWIST1 methylation and BC-specific mortality was observed (HR = 4.25; 95 % CI = 1.43–12.70), although it was less precise.
CYCLIND2, GSTP1, and HIN1 promoter methylation also appeared to modify the associations between obesity and BC-specific mortality, but the interaction was of borderline significance (p < 0.10).
Associations between BMI, global methylation, and mortality
We observed multiplicative interaction between BMI, LUMA, and all-cause mortality and BC-specific mortality following a BC diagnosis (p < 0.05). For example, we observed an 80 % increase in all-cause mortality among obese patients with low LUMA levels (HR = 1.81; 95 % CI = 1.19–2.74) (Table 4). Among obese patients with high LUMA, however, the estimate was less pronounced and imprecise (HR = 1.23; 95 % CI = 0.87–1.73). Similarly, BC-specific mortality was increased more than twofold in obese patients with low LUMA (HR = 2.61; 95 % CI = 1.45–4.69), whereas the corresponding estimates among those with high LUMA were less pronounced (HR = 1.50; 95 % CI = 0.87–2.60).
Table 4.
Global marker | All-cause mortality |
Breast cancer-specific mortality |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BMI categories | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI | No. deaths/cases | HR | 95 % CI |
LUMA methylationa | <Median (0.556) | >Median | <Median (0.556) | >Median | ||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 44/164 | 1.00 | Reference | 80/307 | 1.00 | Reference | 21/164 | 1.00 | Reference | 33/307 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 33/111 | 0.91 | (0.58, 1.44) | 78/226 | 1.11 | (0.81, 1.52) | 12/111 | 0.82 | (0.40, 1.67) | 35/226 | 1.50 | (0.92, 2.43) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 46/88 | 1.81 | (1.19, 2.74) | 56/150 | 1.23 | (0.87, 1.73) | 25/88 | 2.61 | (1.45, 4.69) | 22/150 | 1.50 | (0.87, 2.60) |
p interaction | 0.035 | 0.007 | ||||||||||
LINE-1 methylationb | >Median(78.735) | <Median | >Median (78.735) | <Median | ||||||||
BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 49/183 | 1.00 | Reference | 62/202 | 1.00 | Reference | 20/183 | 1.00 | Reference | 32/202 | 1.00 | Reference |
BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2 | 49/133 | 1.12 | (0.76, 1.65) | 54/151 | 1.01 | (0.71, 1.43) | 21/133 | 1.52 | (0.82, 2.81) | 23/151 | 1.05 | (0.62, 1.77) |
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 50/98 | 1.55 | (1.06, 2.28) | 50/106 | 1.40 | (0.97, 2.01) | 23/98 | 2.46 | (1.36, 4.46) | 25/106 | 1.75 | (1.04, 2.97) |
p interaction | 0.621 | 0.313 |
LUMA methylation median value 0.556, high levels of LUMA hypothesized to be deleterious
LINE-1 methylation median value 78.735, low levels of LINE-1 hypothesized to be deleterious
We found no interaction between BMI, LINE-1, and mortality among women with BC.
Discussion
We are the first to report in a population-based cohort of women with first primary BC, all-cause mortality after 15 years of follow-up was increased two-fold among obese participants with methylated APC or TWIST1 promoters. Effect estimates were more pronounced for BC-specific mortality. We similarly observed two- and three-fold increases in all-cause and BC-specific mortality, respectively, among obese participants with the lowest levels of global methylation assessed using LUMA. Our findings suggest that the association between BMI and BC mortality may depend upon methylation profiles and warrant further investigation.
Several studies, including our own [7, 8, 32], support positive associations between obesity and mortality [33], as well as gene-specific methylation and prognosis [23]. However, to our knowledge, no previous study has considered interaction between obesity, gene methylation, and mortality following BC diagnosis despite strong biologic plausibility. There are several mechanisms thought to influence the adverse role of excess adiposity on BC prognosis. Increased circulating hormones and reduced sex hormone binding globulin are strong possibilities [34, 35]. Excess estrogen is known to promote tumorigenesis [36, 37] and may induce aberrant DNA methylation, altering several genes implicated in breast carcinogenesis [38, 39]. For example, estrogen-induced promoter hypermethylation of CDH1 and p16/CDKN2A has been previously reported [12]. Taken together, these results suggest that the mechanism underlying the obesity-mortality association may be facilitated and/or altered by estrogen-mediated methylation changes.
In our findings reported here, elevated BMI was more strongly associated with mortality among BC patients with methylated APC and TWIST1. The APC tumor suppressor gene gives rise to familial adenomatous polyposis and its role in sporadic colorectal tumors is well documented [40]. Data show that APC may similarly be involved in breast carcinogenesis [41] although the frequency of inactivation is unresolved. Our observation of increased mortality among obese women with BC when methylation is present could reflect synergy between adipose-induced estrogen exposure and inactivation of the APC tumor suppressor; this is likely facilitated by improper TATA-binding in the promoter and reduced expression [42]. Although adiposity is positively associated with mortality overall in women with BC, we observed a reversal of the association when APC methylation was not present. This may suggest that activation of APC alleviates the deleterious effect of adipose-induced estrogen on overall and BC-specific mortality. TWIST1 is an anti-apoptotic and pro-metastatic transcription factor, overexpressed in BC. Methylation of its gene promoter has frequently been observed in malignant breast tissue [42]. While we found substantial increases in mortality following BC diagnosis among obese patients with TWIST1 methylation, the underlying biology is uncertain. TWIST1 is thought to function as an oncogene given its role in suppressing apoptosis and promoting metastasis. However, it has been suggested that methylation of the TWIST1 promoter provides breast epithelial cells with a selective advantage during breast carcinogenesis [43] and may explain the synergy observed with obesity in this study. Further, there appears to be little correlation between TWIST1 methylation and gene expression [44, 45].
To our knowledge, no previous study has evaluated associations between LUMA and BC prognosis. While LINE-1 hypomethylation has been associated with poor prognosis in epithelial cancers [46, 47], we identified only one investigation of BC where LINE-1 hypomethylation was associated with decreased survival in younger (<55 years) women [5]. In our population-based sample of women with BC, we did not find associations between global methylation and mortality when considering main effects for LUMA or LINE-1, although we did observe interaction between LUMA and BMI in relation to mortality. While typically global DNA hypomethylation increases genomic instability leading to the activation of oncogenes and silencing of tumor suppressors [48], LUMA measures levels of 5-mC in the CmCGG motif which may result in approximation of methylation levels at gene promoters [14]. Thus, low LUMA may associate with better prognosis [49]. Our findings of worse prognosis among obese patients with low LUMA levels may be due to differences in our comparison groups. In the presence of low LUMA, obesity may be particularly deleterious, whereas in presence of high LUMA (and higher genomic instability), the additional risk of death from obesity is minimal. LINE-1 retrotransposon activity may be triggered by stress, including oxidative stress and exposure to DNA damaging agents leading to cancer initiation and progression [50, 51]. Given adiposity is linked to inflammation and oxidative damage, the lack of interaction between BMI and LINE-1 was surprising. However, among older patients LINE-1 hypomethylation is likely a bystander of age-dependent tumor development [5] and may not be predictive of prognosis in the LIBCSP study population, which consists of mostly older women.
Our prospective, population-based study has numerous strengths. We are the first to examine the potential relationship between obesity, methylation (gene-specific and global) and BC survival, and in a comparatively large population-based sample of women diagnosed with a first primary BC with methylation markers and 15 years of follow-up. Our reliance on recalled weight and height is a potential limitation of this study. However, anthropometric data were obtained systematically by trained interviewers [15], and previous studies have found that self-reported anthropometric measures are reasonably accurate when compared with clinical measurements taken at the same time [52]. With regard to estimating gene-specific methylation, we were unable to obtain archived tumor tissue for all LIBCSP cases potentially resulting in selection bias; nonetheless, our population-based sample of BC cases is among the largest with information on methylation status. Our panel of 13 biologically relevant genes limited the number of mechanistic pathways we could evaluate. Employing global methylation markers helps to overcome many of the limitations encountered using gene-specific markers, but it is unknown whether methylation levels in surrogate tissue correlate with levels in target tissue [53]. The LIBSCP study population is primarily comprised white women, which is the largest racial group of BC survivors in the US [54]. While our findings do not apply to African-American women, who are at greatest risk of death from BC, the underlying biologic pathways driving the association between obesity and mortality are unlikely to vary by race and may be relevant for all demographic groups. The racial homogeneity of our study population limits our ability to explore potential variation by intrinsic subtype (luminal A, luminal B, HER2, and triple negative), with known variation in prognostic outcomes. Yet, the largest subtype of BC diagnosed among US women of any race is ER+PR+ [55], which continues to increase with time [56] and is the predominant subtype of BC diagnosed among our study participants. Although we considered hormone receptor status as a potential confounder in the study reported here, we did not find that this tumor characteristic influenced our effects estimates. We did not consider more finely categorized breast cancer subtypes, which may have influenced our findings. However, hormone receptor-positive tumors (ER+ or PR+) strongly correlate with the Luminal subtypes, which are associated with better prognosis. Similarly, the hormone receptor-negative tumors strongly correlate with both the HER2+ and triple-negative subtypes, which have been linked to poorer outcomes. Finally, although invasive cases have worst prognosis overall compared to in situ cases, both groups were included in our analysis. We calculated the frequency of methylation in the two groups independently (data not shown) and found similar prevalence (average difference across all genes was 5 %). These data support the hypothesis that in DNA methylation occurs prior to disease onset and are unlikely to be influenced by tumor aggressiveness. We have included in Supplemental Table 1 associations for APC, TWIST1, and LUMA among invasive cases only.
In summary, we are the first to show that promoter methylation of APC and TWIST1, as well as levels of global methylation assessed using LUMA, may modify the well-established association between obesity and mortality following a BC diagnosis. Pending additional replication, our findings could help to identify women with BC who would most greatly benefit from increased surveillance. Our results may also provide clues to mechanistic pathways by which obesity influences BC prognosis.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by Grants from the National Cancer Institute (R25CA057726, UO1CA/ES66572, R01CA66572, R01CA109753, 3R01CA109753-04S1); the National Institutes of Environmental Health and Sciences (P30ES009089, P30ES10126); and the Department of Defense (BC972772).
Footnotes
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-016-3724-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethical standards Institutional Review Board approval was obtained by all participating institutions.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Breast Cancer. [Accessed 1 Sept 2015];American Cancer Society. 2014 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-statistics.
- 2.Loi S, Milne RL, Friedlander ML, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Hopper JL, Phillips KA. Obesity and outcomes in pre-menopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14(7):1686–1691. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0042. epi-05-0042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(8):806–814. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.American Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2014–2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 5.van Hoesel AQ, van de Velde CJ, Kuppen PJ, Liefers GJ, Putter H, Sato Y, Elashoff DA, Turner RR, Shamonki JM, de Kruijf EM, van Nes JG, Giuliano AE, Hoon DS. Hypomethylation of LINE-1 in primary tumor has poor prognosis in young breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):1103–1114. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2038-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ehrlich M. DNA methylation in cancer: too much, but also too little. Oncogene. 2002;21(35):5400–5413. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Xu X, Gammon MD, Zhang Y, Cho YH, Wetmur JG, Bradshaw PT, Garbowski G, Hibshoosh H, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Chen J. Gene promoter methylation is associated with increased mortality among women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(3):685–692. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0628-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cho YH, Shen J, Gammon MD, Zhang YJ, Wang Q, Gonzalez K, Xu X, Bradshaw PT, Teitelbaum SL, Garbowski G, Hibshoosh H, Neugut AI, Chen J, Santella RM. Prognostic significance of gene-specific promoter hypermethylation in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(1):197–205. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1712-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Issa JP. CpG island methylator phenotype in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(12):988–993. doi: 10.1038/nrc1507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Soares J, Pinto AE, Cunha CV, Andre S, Barao I, Sousa JM, Cravo M. Global DNA hypomethylation in breast carcinoma: correlation with prognostic factors and tumor progression. Cancer. 1999;85(1):112–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Platet N, Cathiard AM, Gleizes M, Garcia M. Estrogens and their receptors in breast cancer progression: a dual role in cancer proliferation and invasion. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;51(1):55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2004.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Klein C, Leszczynska J. Estrogen-induced DNA methylation of E-cadherin and p16 in non-tumor breast cells. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2005:46. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Weisenberger DJ, Campan M, Long TI, Kim M, Woods C, Fiala E, Ehrlich M, Laird PW. Analysis of repetitive element DNA methylation by MethyLight. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(21):6823–6836. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Xu X, Gammon MD, Hernandez-Vargas H, Herceg Z, Wetmur JG, Teitelbaum SL, Bradshaw PT, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Chen J. DNA methylation in peripheral blood measured by LUMA is associated with breast cancer in a population-based study. FASEB J. 2012;26(6):2657–2666. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-197251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gammon MD, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Terry MB, Eng SM, Wolff MS, Stellman SD, Kabat GC, Levin B, Bradlow HL, Hatch M, Beyea J, Camann D, Trent M, Senie RT, Garbowski GC, Maffeo C, Montalvan P, Berkowitz GS, Kemeny M, Citron M, Schnabe F, Schuss A, Hajdu S, Vincguerra V, Collman GW, Obrams GI. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project: description of a multi-institutional collaboration to identify environmental risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;74(3):235–254. doi: 10.1023/a:1016387020854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bradshaw PT, Ibrahim JG, Stevens J, Cleveland R, Abrahamson PE, Satia JA, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Postdiagnosis change in bodyweight and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2012;23(2):320–327. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31824596a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cleveland RJ, Eng SM, Stevens J, Bradshaw PT, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Influence of prediagnostic recreational physical activity on survival from breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21(1):46–54. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e3283498dd4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Xu X, Gammon MD, Zhang Y, Bestor TH, Zeisel SH, Wetmur JG, Wallenstein S, Bradshaw PT, Garbowski G, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Chen J. BRCA1 promoter methylation is associated with increased mortality among women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):397–404. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0075-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Liu ZJ, Maekawa M, Horii T, Morita M. The multiple promoter methylation profile of PR gene and ERalpha gene in tumor cell lines. Life Sci. 2003;73(15):1963–1972. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3205(03)00544-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Eads CA, Danenberg KD, Kawakami K, Saltz LB, Danenberg PV, Laird PW. CpG island hypermethylation in human colorectal tumors is not associated with DNA methyltransferase overexpression. Cancer Res. 1999;59(10):2302–2306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Eads CA, Lord RV, Kurumboor SK, Wickramasinghe K, Skinner ML, Long TI, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Danenberg KD, Danenberg PV, Laird PW, Skinner KA. Fields of aberrant CpG island hypermethylation in Barrett’s esophagus and associated adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 2000;60(18):5021–5026. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−ΔΔC(T)) Method. Methods. 2001;25(4):402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gyorffy B, Bottai G, Fleischer T, Munkacsy G, Budczies J, Paladini L, Borresen-Dale AL, Kristensen VN, Santarpia L. Aberrant DNA methylation impacts gene expression and prognosis in breast cancer subtypes. Int J Cancer. 2015:29684. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Gammon MD, Sagiv SK, Eng SM, Shantakumar S, Gaudet MM, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Terry MB, Wang LW, Wang Q, Stellman SD, Beyea J, Hatch M, Kabat GC, Wolff MS, Levin B, Neugut AI, Santella RM. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and breast cancer: a pooled analysis. Arch Environ Health. 2004;59(12):640–649. doi: 10.1080/00039890409602948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bjornsson HT, Sigurdsson MI, Fallin MD, Irizarry RA, Aspelund T, Cui H, Yu W, Rongione MA, Ekstrom TJ, Harris TB, Launer LJ, Eiriksdottir G, Leppert MF, Sapienza C, Gudnason V, Fein-berg AP. Intra-individual change over time in DNA methylation with familial clustering. JAMA. 2008;299(24):2877–2883. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.24.2877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Khankari NK, Bradshaw PT, Steck SE, He K, Olshan AF, Shen J, Ahn J, Chen Y, Ahsan H, Terry MB, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Gammon MD. Dietary intake of fish, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and survival after breast cancer: a population-based follow-up study on Long Island, New York. Cancer. 2015 doi: 10.1002/cncr.29329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Allison P. Survival analysis using SAS: a practical guide. 2nd. Cary: SAS Publishing; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kleinbaum D, Klein M. Logistic regression: a self-learning text. 2nd. New York: Springer; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cole SR, Hernan MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):163–165. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):488–495. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a819a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd. New York: Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics, applied probability and statisticsWiley; 1989. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cleveland RJ, Eng SM, Abrahamson PE, Britton JA, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Weight gain prior to diagnosis and survival from breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16(9):1803–1811. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Protani M, Coory M, Martin JH. Effect of obesity on survival of women with breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(3):627–635. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0990-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Key TJ, Appleby PN, Reeves GK, Roddam A, Dorgan JF, Longcope C, Stanczyk FZ, Stephenson HE, Jr, Falk RT, Miller R, Schatzkin A, Allen DS, Fentiman IS, Key TJ, Wang DY, Dowsett M, Thomas HV, Hankinson SE, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, Koenig K, Shore RE, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Berrino F, Muti P, Micheli A, Krogh V, Sieri S, Pala V, Venturelli E, Secreto G, Barrett-Connor E, Laughlin GA, Kabuto M, Akiba S, Stevens RG, Neriishi K, Land CE, Cauley JA, Kuller LH, Cummings SR, Helzlsouer KJ, Alberg AJ, Bush TL, Comstock GW, Gordon GB, Miller SR, Longcope C. Body mass index, serum sex hormones, and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(16):1218–1226. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djg022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ligibel J. Obesity and breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2011;25(11):994–1000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Creese I, Burt DR, Snyder SH. Dopamine receptor binding: differentiation of agonist and antagonist states with 3H–dopamine and 3H–haloperidol. Life Sci. 1975;17(6):933–1001. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(75)90454-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Snedeker SM, Diaugustine RP. Hormonal and environmental factors affecting cell proliferation and neoplasia in the mammary gland. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1996;394:211–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Starlard-Davenport A, Tryndyak VP, James SR, Karpf AR, Latendresse JR, Beland FA, Pogribny IP. Mechanisms of epigenetic silencing of the Rassf1a gene during estrogen-induced breast carcinogenesis in ACI rats. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31(3):376–381. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgp304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fernandez SV, Snider KE, Wu YZ, Russo IH, Plass C, Russo J. DNA methylation changes in a human cell model of breast cancer progression. Mutat Res. 2010;688(1-2):28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.02.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Lessons from hereditary colorectal cancer. Cell. 1996;87(2):159–170. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81333-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jin Z, Tamura G, Tsuchiya T, Sakata K, Kashiwaba M, Osakabe M, Motoyama T. Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene promoter hypermethylation in primary breast cancers. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(1):69–73. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Widschwendter M, Jones PA. DNA methylation and breast carcinogenesis. Oncogene. 2002;21(35):5462–5482. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Gort EH, Suijkerbuijk KP, Roothaan SM, Raman V, Vooijs M, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ. Methylation of the TWIST1 promoter, TWIST1 mRNA levels, and immunohistochemical expression of TWIST1 in breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Bio-mark Prev. 2008;17(12):3325–3330. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, Dresdner G, Gross B, Sumer SO, Sun Y, Jacobsen A, Sinha R, Larsson E, Cerami E, Sander C, Schultz N. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):l1. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Cerami E, Gao J, Dogrusoz U, Gross BE, Sumer SO, Aksoy BA, Jacobsen A, Byrne CJ, Heuer ML, Larsson E, Antipin Y, Reva B, Goldberg AP, Sander C, Schultz N. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(5):401–404. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Baba Y, Huttenhower C, Nosho K, Tanaka N, Shima K, Hazra A, Schernhammer ES, Hunter DJ, Giovannucci EL, Fuchs CS, Ogino S. Epigenomic diversity of colorectal cancer indicated by LINE-1 methylation in a database of 869 tumors. Mol Cancer. 2010;9(125) doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-9-125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Saito K, Kawakami K, Matsumoto I, Oda M, Watanabe G, Minamoto T. Long interspersed nuclear element 1 hypomethylation is a marker of poor prognosis in stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(8):2418–2426. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Costello JF, Plass C. Methylation matters. J Med Genet. 2001;38(5):285–303. doi: 10.1136/jmg.38.5.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Deneberg S, Grovdal M, Karimi M, Jansson M, Nahi H, Corbacioglu A, Gaidzik V, Dohner K, Paul C, Ekstrom TJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg E, Lehmann S. Gene-specific and global methylation patterns predict outcome in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2010;24(5):932–941. doi: 10.1038/leu.2010.41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Rockwood LD, Felix K, Janz S. Elevated presence of retrotransposons at sites of DNA double strand break repair in mouse models of metabolic oxidative stress and MYC-induced lymphoma. Mutat Res. 2004;548(1-2):117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Kazazian HH, Jr, Goodier JL. LINE drive. retrotransposition and genome instability. Cell. 2002;110(3):277–280. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00868-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Cairns BJ, Liu B, Clennell S, Cooper R, Reeves GK, Beral V, Kuh D. Lifetime body size and reproductive factors: comparisons of data recorded prospectively with self reports in middle age. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.van Bemmel D, Lenz P, Liao LM, Baris D, Sternberg LR, Warner A, Johnson A, Jones M, Kida M, Schwenn M, Schned AR, Silverman DT, Rothman N, Moore LE. Correlation of LINE-1 methylation levels in patient-matched buffy coat, serum, buccal cell, and bladder tumor tissue DNA samples. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2012;21(7):1143–1148. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity. [Accessed 1 Sept 2015];Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015 http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/race.htm.
- 55.Clarke CA, Keegan TH, Yang J, Press DJ, Kurian AW, Patel AH, Lacey JV. Age-specific incidence of breast cancer subtypes: understanding the black-white crossover. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(14):1094–1101. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Anderson WF, Katki HA, Rosenberg PS. Incidence of breast cancer in the United States: current and future trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(18):1397–1402. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.