Purpose
Studies of the etiology of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but aggressive breast cancer, have been hampered by limited risk factor information. We extend previous studies by ...evaluating a broader range of risk factors.
Methods
Between 2009 and 2015, we conducted a case–control study of IBC at six centers in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco; enrolled were 267 IBC cases and for comparison 274 non-IBC cases and 275 controls, both matched on age and geographic area to the IBC cases. We administered questionnaires and collected anthropometric measurements for all study subjects. We used multiple imputation methods to account for missing values and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using polytomous logistic regression comparing each of the two case groups to the controls, with statistical tests for the difference between the coefficients for the two case groups.
Results
After multivariable adjustment, a livebirth within the previous 2 years (OR 4.6; 95% CI 1.8 to 11.7) and diabetes (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.0) were associated with increased risk of IBC, but not non-IBC (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.3 to 2.5 and OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.6 for livebirth and diabetes, respectively). A family history of breast cancer, inflammatory-like breast problems, breast trauma, and low socioeconomic status were associated with increased risk of both tumor types.
Conclusions
We identified novel risk factors for IBC and non-IBC, some of which preferentially increased risk of IBC compared to non-IBC. Upon confirmation, these findings could help illuminate the etiology and aid in prevention of this aggressive cancer.
Purpose
We describe the clinico-pathologic and mammographic characteristics of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and non-IBC cases enrolled in a case–control study. Because IBC is a clinico-pathologic ...entity with rapid appearance of erythema and other signs, its diagnosis is based on clinical observation and thus, by necessity, subjective. Therefore, we evaluate our cases by photographic review by outside expert clinicians and by degree of adherence to the two most recent definitions of IBC: the international expert panel consensus statement and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition (we used the slightly less restrictive 7th edition definition for our study).
Methods
We enrolled 267 IBC and 274 age- and geographically matched non-IBC cases at 6 sites in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco in a case–control study of IBC conducted between 2009 and 2015. We collected clinico-pathologic and mammographic data and standardized medical photographs of the breast.
Results
We identified many differences between IBC and non-IBC cases: 54.5% versus 68.8% were estrogen receptor-positive, 39.9% versus 14.8% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, 91% versus 4% exhibited erythema, 63% versus 97% had a mass, and 57% versus 10% had mammographic evidence of skin thickening. Seventy-six percent of IBC cases adhered to the expert panel consensus statement and 36% to the AJCC definition; 86 percent were confirmed as IBC by either photographic review or adherence to the consensus statement.
Conclusions
We successfully identified distinct groups of IBC and non-IBC cases. The reliability of IBC diagnosis would benefit from expert review of standardized medical photographs and associated clinical information.
PDF
