4.6 Article

The obesity paradox in early and advanced HER2 positive breast cancer: pooled analysis of clinical trial data

Journal

NPJ BREAST CANCER
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00241-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Council South Australia's Beat Cancer Project
  2. State Government through the Department of Health [1159924, 1127220]
  3. Cancer Council's Beat Cancer Project
  4. South Australian Department of Health
  5. Beat Cancer Mid-Career Research Fellowship from Cancer Council SA
  6. National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia [PF-17-007]
  7. National Breast Cancer Foundation Practitioner grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that higher BMI was associated with worse survival in early breast cancer patients, but paradoxically, it was associated with improved survival in advanced breast cancer patients.
While many studies have evaluated the relationship between BMI and breast cancer outcomes, it is unclear whether this relationship is consistent between early breast cancer (BC) and advanced BC. The study included 5099 patients with HER2 positive early BC (EBC) and 3496 with HER2 positive advanced BC (ABC). In the EBC cohort, higher BMI was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR [95% CI]: overweight = 1.30 [1.13-1.51]; obese = 1.37 [1.14-1.64], P= <0.001), and worse disease-free survival (overweight = 1.10 [0.98-1.24]; obese = 1.20 [1.04-1.39], P= 0.061). In contrast, for the ABC cohort, higher BMI was significantly associated with improved OS (overweight = 0.85 [0.76-0.96]; obese = 0.82 [0.72-0.95], P = 0.014), and progression-free survival (overweight = 0.91 [0.83-1.01]; obese = 0.87 [0.77-0.98], P= 0.034). In this large high-quality dataset, higher BMI was independently associated with worse survival in EBC, paradoxically in ABC higher BMI was independently associated with improved survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available