Abstract B014: Early-onset breast cancer and reproductive timing: results from the Mexican Teachers’ Cohort
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The incidence of early-onset breast cancer (EOBC; diagnosed under the age of 50) is rising globally, with incidence and mortality rates in Latin America being twice as high as those in high-income countries. The Mexican Teachers’ Cohort, the largest prospective cancer study in the region, is uniquely positioned to provide valuable insights into EOBC in Latin America. Methods: We followed 95,828 Mexican women younger than 50 (2006–2023; 824,053 person-years). Incident breast cancers were validated through population-based cancer and mortality registries, health utilization datasets (Positive predictive value, PPV, 97%), and self-reports. EOBC was defined as a diagnosis <50 years. For each reproductive factor (age at menarche, parity/number of births, age at first full-term pregnancy (FFTP), breastfeeding, and hormonal contraceptive (HC) use), we used multivariate Cox proportional hazards models with follow-up time as the time scale to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Adjustment sets were selected a priori using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). Results: Among 2,214 incident breast cancers, 618 were EOBC, <50 years old (28%): 47 occurred before 40, 160 between 40–44, and 411 between 45–49 years. In EOBC-focused models, later menarche was inversely associated with EOBC incidence (per-year HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.98; ≥15 vs. ≤11 years, HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53–0.98). Having had a full-term birth showed no clear protective effect (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77–1.22). Among women who have given birth, higher parity was protective (3 vs. 1 birth: HR 0.67, 0.51–0.88; 4 or more vs. 1: HR 0.85, 0.62–1.18; per additional birth: HR 0.92, 0.84–1.01). Older age at first FFTP was linked to higher EOBC incidence compared to age 19 or younger (20–24 HR 1.24, 0.85–1.79; 25–29 HR 1.21, 0.83–1.76; 30–34 HR 1.53, 1.01–2.31; 35 or older HR 1.58, 0.89–2.82; per year HR 1.02, 1.00–1.04). Breastfeeding showed no strong protective effect, with some modest inverse estimates without a clear dose–response relationship (≥18 vs 0 months: HR 0.82, 0.59–1.14; per additional month: HR 0.99, 0.98–1.00). HC use was positively associated with EOBC (ever vs never, HR 1.22, 1.04–1.45); use of ≥5 years showed a similar trend (HR 1.25, 0.99–1.57). Oral HC users had a higher incidence of EOBC compared to non-users (HR 1.27, 1.04–1.55). Conclusions: In this cohort, one-third of breast cancer diagnoses occur before the age of 50. The timing of reproductive events—specifically, later onset of menarche (which appears to be protective), older age at FFTP, and higher parity (also protective)—was noted. At the same time, there is limited evidence supporting the protective role of breastfeeding and only modest positive associations identified with certain patterns of hormonal contraceptive use. These findings, derived from an underrepresented population, underscore the importance of incorporating reproductive timing into risk stratification and prevention strategies for EOBC in Mexico and throughout Latin America. Citation Format: Liliana Gomez-Flores-Ramos, Leticia Palma, Dalia Stern, Marion Brochier, Jocelyn Jaen, Adrian Cortes, Alberto Castellanos, Martin Lajous. Early-onset breast cancer and reproductive timing: results from the Mexican Teachers’ Cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr B014.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».