American Association for Cancer Research, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 3(31), p. 561-568, 2022
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-0940
Full text: Download
Abstract Background: Breast cancers in recently postpartum women may have worse outcomes, but studies examining tumor molecular features by pregnancy recency have shown conflicting results. Methods: This analysis used Carolina Breast Cancer Study data to examine clinical and molecular tumor features among women less than 50 years of age who were recently (≤10 years prior) or remotely (>10 years prior) postpartum, or nulliparous. Prevalence odds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariable models. Results: Recently postpartum women (N = 618) were more frequently lymph node–positive [POR (95% CI): 1.66 (1.26–2.19)], estrogen receptor (ER)-negative [1.37 (1.02–1.83)], and IHC-based triple negative [1.57 (1.00–2.47)] compared with nulliparous (N = 360) women. Some differences were identified between recent versus remotely postpartum; smaller tumor size [0.67 (0.52–0.86)], p53 wildtype [0.53 (0.36–0.77)], and non–basal-like phenotype [0.53 (0.33–0.84)] were more common among recently postpartum. Recently postpartum (vs. nulliparous) had significant enrichment for adaptive immunity, T cells, B cells, CD8 T cells, activated CD8 T cells/natural killer (NK) cells, and T follicular helper (Tfh) cells and higher overall immune cell scores. These differences were attenuated in remotely (compared with recently) postpartum women. Conclusions: These results suggest a dominant effect of parity (vs. nulliparity) and a lesser effect of pregnancy recency on tumor molecular features, although tumor immune microenvironments were altered in association with pregnancy recency. Impact: Our study is unique in examining tumor immune microenvironment and RNA-based markers according to time since last childbirth. Future studies should examine the interplay between tumor features, postdiagnostic treatment, and outcomes among recently postpartum women. See related commentary by McDonald et al., p. 518