Table 2.
Cross-sectional analyses examining the association between obesity and CLS-B.
| First Author (Year) | Patient Study Population | % CLS-B+ by BMI (kg/m2) Group | Association between BMI and CLS-B aOR (95%CI) if Presented |
Association with Other Adiposity Measures | Direction of Association: -/Null/+ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaik (2020) [84] | BBD + Komen Normal Tissue Bank | NR | Not associated (p > 0.1) | Null | ||
| Carter (2017) [85] | BBD + Komen Normal Tissue Bank | BMI < 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥ 30: |
7% 13% 29% |
+ | ||
| Maliniak (2020) [69] | Breast cancer | BMI < 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥ 30: |
16% 29% 45% |
Reference 2.34 (1.17 to 4.70) 4.73 (2.48 to 9.01) |
+ | |
| Cha (2018) a [86] | Breast cancer | BMI < 25: BMI ≥ 25: |
15% 27% |
+ | ||
| Greenlee (2018) [70] | Breast cancer | BMI 18.5–< 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI 30–< 35: BMI ≥ 35: |
24% 34% 57% 65% |
+ | ||
| Iyengar (2018) b [81] | Breast cancer | BMI < 23: BMI 23–< 27.5: BMI ≥ 27.5: |
24% 48% 76% |
Body fat, VAT, and SAT (all p < 0.01) | + | |
| Iyengar (2017) [71] | Mostly breast cancer | All BMI < 25: | 39% | CLS-B- vs. CLS-B + median BMI: 21.8 vs. 23.0, p = 0.04 |
+ | |
| Mullooly (2017) [80] | Breast cancer | BMI < 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥ 30: |
17% 36% 54% |
Reference 1.93 (0.50 to 7.40) 4.63 (1.08 to 19.83) |
+ | |
| Vaysse (2017) [83] | Breast cancer | BMI < 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥30: |
NR | Reference 3.2 (1.28 to 8.15) 6.9 (1.35 to 35.0) |
WHR and % truncal fat (all p < 0.05) | + |
| Iyengar (2016) c [82] | Breast cancer | BMI < 25: BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥ 30: |
23% 33% 67% |
+ | ||
| Iyengar (2015) [73] | Mostly breast cancer | BMI < 25 BMI 25–< 30: BMI ≥ 30: |
34% 53% 90% |
CLS concordance between breast and abdominal SAT (p = 0.12) | + | |
Abbreviations: aOR = adjusted odds ratio; BBD = benign breast disease; BMI = body mass index; CLS-B = crown-like structures in the breast adipose tissue; NR = not reported; SAT = subcutaneous adipose tissue, VAT = visceral adipose tissue. a Cha et al. (2018) reported BMI associations for CLS-B detected using CD68 and CD163. The association for CLS detected by CD68 IHC is presented in the table for comparison with the other studies that all used CD68 for CLS-B detection. For CLS detected by CD163, % CLS-B was higher for women with BMI ≥ 25 (19%) compared BMI < 25 (11%). BMI associations were only reported for Group 3 (see Table 1). b Iyengar et al. (2018) [81] reports BMI associations for Taiwanese and US Caucasian patients. Associations for Taiwanese breast cancer patients are reported in the table above since presumably the US Caucasian subjects were included in the cohort from Iyengar et al. (2015) [73] which is already reported in the table. c Iyengar et al. (2016) [82] reports BMI associations for Cohorts 1 and 2. Associations for Cohort 2 are reported in the table above since the subjects in Cohort 1 are a sample of patients from Iyengar et al. (2015) [73] which is already reported in the table.