Abstract LB-460: Effects of folic acid supplementation on mammary tumor progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The role of folate in breast cancer is highly controversial. Although some epidemiologic studies have suggested a protective effect of high folate status on breast cancer risk, recent studies have suggested that high folate intake, largely from folic acid (the synthetic form of folate), and high plasma folate levels may increase breast cancer risk. In animal studies, folic acid supplementation was shown to promote the progression of established preneoplastic lesions of colon cancer. Folic acid intake in North America has drastically increased over the past decade due to folic acid fortification and widespread supplemental use. Almost 70% of breast cancer patients consume folic acid containing vitamin supplements after diagnosis. The benefits of folic acid supplementation in patients with breast cancer are unknown and there is a concern that folic acid supplementation may in fact adversely affect breast cancer progression. We therefore investigated the effects of folic acid supplementation on the progression of established mammary tumors in the DMBA rat model. Methods: Female Sprague Dawley rats were placed on a control diet containing 2 mg folic acid/kg diet and mammary tumors were initiated with DMBA at 7 weeks of age. When the sentinel tumor reached a diameter between 7–9 mm, rats were randomized to receive a diet containing 2 (control), 5, 8, or 10 mg of folic acid/kg diet for up to 12 weeks. Body weight and mammary tumor growth were measured weekly and plasma folate levels at necropsy were determined. At necropsy, the sentinel and all other mammary tumors were excised and histologically analyzed. Results: The final weight of the animals at necropsy was not significantly different among the 4 groups. Animals on the control and 10 mg folic acid/kg diet had significantly faster weight gain than those on the 8 mg folic acid/kg diet (p<0.02) while those on the 5 mg folic acid diet did not differ significantly from either group. Plasma folate levels significantly reflected the supplemental levels of folic acid in a dose-responsive manner (p<0.05). Sentinel tumor growth (mm2/week) was not significantly different among the 4 groups at 4, 7, and 12 post randomization. Sentinel tumor weight at necropsy was lower in the control group compared with the 5 and 8 (p<0.05) and with the 10 (p=0.051) mg folic acid/kg diet groups. Total weight of all mammary tumors was highest in 5 and 8 mg supplemented groups compared to the control group (p< 0.05, p=0.086). Conclusion: Our data suggest that folic acid supplementation may promote the progression of established mammary tumors, although no clear dose-responsive relationship was observed. Given the drastically increased folic acid intake and the mortality and morbidity of breast cancer in North America, the potential adverse effect of folic acid supplementation on breast cancer progression needs to be clarified. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-460. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-LB-460
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".