Awareness of breast cancer incidence and risk factors among healthy women in Germany: an update after 10 years.

Early breast cancer detection programs depend for effectiveness on the participation rate, which is affected by risk factor awareness. This study investigated changes in women's risk factor awareness between 2004 and 2016. Results from a 2004 survey of 2107 healthy women were compared with new data obtained using the same questionnaire in 2016, with 866 participants indicating their knowledge and perceptions regarding breast cancer incidence, risk factors, risk perceptions, and levels of concern. Logistic regression models assessed the influence of time point (2004 vs. 2016) on correct recognition of risk factors such as age at first childbirth, childlessness, lack of breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and family history. Regression models were adjusted for common sociodemographic characteristics. Reproductive risk factors were regarded as influencing breast cancer risk less often. In 2004, age at first birth, childlessness, and lack of breastfeeding were regarded as risk factors by 24, 32, and 37%, respectively, in comparison with only 15, 18, and 23% in 2016. All changes were statistically significant. Awareness of HRT as a risk factor increased significantly (36-57%), and family history was recognized as a risk by 75 and 73% in 2004 and 2016, respectively. Most women recognized family history as a breast cancer risk factor. This did not change, reflecting the topic's media prominence. Awareness of HRT as a risk factor increased, probably owing to public information after the large HRT studies. It is unclear why reproductive risk factors are less frequently recognized; educational programs should address this information deficit.

Association of molecular subtypes with breast cancer risk factors: a case-only analysis.

As breast cancer (BC) screening identifies many BCs with a good prognosis, which might be overdiagnosed and therefore overtreated, the identification of subgroups with a high risk for aggressive subtypes might be helpful. The aim of this case-case analysis was to investigate the association between epidemiological risk factors and molecular subtypes in a cohort of BC patients. Epidemiological risk factors for 2587 BC patients were obtained using a structured questionnaire and from the patients' charts. The histopathological information (estrogen and progesterone receptor, HER2 and Ki-67) used in the analysis was retrieved from the original pathology reports. Analyses using conditional inference regression trees were carried out on these data. The strongest influence factor on the distribution of the molecular subtypes was age at first diagnosis of BC. An influence of BMI was also identified in patients aged either more than 42 years or 49.6 years or less. Older patients aged more than 49.6 years and perimenopausal women with a BMI of 32.4 kg/m or less were most likely to develop luminal A-like BC. Young patients aged 42 years or less and perimenopausal patients with a BMI more than 32.4 kg/m more often developed triple-negative BC. The study confirmed that age at diagnosis is an important factor influencing the distribution of molecular subtypes. In the perimenopausal group, it may be postulated that BMI plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of BC, defining a subgroup that is more likely to develop triple-negative BC or luminal B-like disease and another group in which there is a more postmenopausal distribution pattern.

Acceptance for preventive genetic testing and prophylactic surgery in women with a family history of breast and gynaecological cancers.

The fear of family members of patients with breast or gynaecologic cancer of developing a similar disease is often high. We investigated the acceptance for genetic testing of untested women with a positive family history and their attitude for prophylactic surgery. A total of 659 women with a familial history of breast or gynaecologic cancer were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding their interest in genetic testing for breast cancer as well as for gynaecologic carcinoma and their interest in prophylactic surgery. Genetic testing is seen to be accepted by the majority of participants: 85.0 and 77.8% chose a genetic test for breast and gynaecologic cancer, respectively. Prophylactic surgery was much less chosen; prophylactic mastectomy as well as prophylactic hysterectomy or bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy was an option only for a minority of women. Genetic testing for risk assessment of healthy women with a positive family history was observed to be accepted by a majority of participants. Prophylactic surgery was an option only for a minority and was not acceptable for most of the women.

Awareness of general and personal risk factors for uterine cancer among healthy women.

Participation rates in gynaecological cancer screening are influenced by different factors. The knowledge of general and personal risk factors for uterine cancer among women might influence their interest in gynaecological cancer screening. Two thousand nine hundred women in 23 gynaecological outpatient services were invited to answer a structured questionnaire regarding general and personal risk factors for cervical and endometrial carcinoma; 2108 women participated. Women with a history of cancer were excluded from the study. It was found that levels of knowledge about uterine carcinoma were low. Only 47.4% of women knew the difference between the sites of origin of cervical and endometrial cancer. Seventy-seven per cent of participants assessed their knowledge about uterine malignancies as insufficient; 96.3% would appreciate more information about uterine cancer. Younger women were significantly less well informed than postmenopausal women. Known risk factors such as smoking or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection as factors for cervical cancer were underestimated; most women assessed genetic factors as most important for the development of uterine cancer. The level of information about risk factors as well as general facts about gynaecological cancer in women is low. Ameliorating this lack of information might influence the perception of uterine cancer and result in higher participation rates in gynaecological cancer screening.

Leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) gene mutations in women with unexplained infertility and recurrent failure of implantation after IVF and embryo transfer.

OBJECTIVE: Leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) plays a central role in the control of implantation. We undertook this study to investigate the prevalence of LIF gene alterations in women with unexplained infertility and with recurrent failure of implantation after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and embryo transfer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty five women with recurrent failure of implantation after IVF (group A), 50 with unexplained infertility (group B) and 105 fertile women (controls) were screened for LIF gene mutations. Standard genomic DNA extraction, PCR amplification of the LIF gene and single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis were used to search for mutations which were subsequently confirmed by DNA sequencing. RESULTS: In group A, one woman was identified as having a neutral LIF gene polymorphism in exon 3 without affecting protein conformation. In group B, one woman with a heterozygous mutation and one with a neutral polymorphism were detected. In controls, only one woman with a neutral polymorphism in the intron between exons 2 and 3 was found. The woman with a potentially functional LIF gene mutation in group B achieved an ongoing clinical pregnancy after ovarian superovulation. DISCUSSION: Potentially functional mutations in the LIF gene do infrequently occur in women with unexplained infertility and may play a role in the etiology of infertility. However, routine screening for LIF mutations or polymorphisms in these women is not justified for the low prevalence of gene alterations.