↓ Skip to main content

A comprehensive evaluation of interaction between genetic variants and use of menopausal hormone therapy on mammographic density

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comprehensive evaluation of interaction between genetic variants and use of menopausal hormone therapy on mammographic density
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13058-015-0625-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Rudolph, Peter A. Fasching, Sabine Behrens, Ursula Eilber, Manjeet K. Bolla, Qin Wang, Deborah Thompson, Kamila Czene, Judith S. Brand, Jingmei Li, Christopher Scott, V. Shane Pankratz, Kathleen Brandt, Emily Hallberg, Janet E. Olson, Adam Lee, Matthias W. Beckmann, Arif B. Ekici, Lothar Haeberle, Gertraud Maskarinec, Loic Le Marchand, Fredrick Schumacher, Roger L. Milne, Julia A. Knight, Carmel Apicella, Melissa C. Southey, Miroslav K. Kapuscinski, John L. Hopper, Irene L. Andrulis, Graham G. Giles, Christopher A. Haiman, Kay-Tee Khaw, Robert Luben, Per Hall, Paul D. P. Pharoah, Fergus J. Couch, Douglas F. Easton, Isabel dos-Santos-Silva, Celine Vachon, Jenny Chang-Claude

Abstract

Mammographic density is an established breast cancer risk factor with a strong genetic component and can be increased in women using menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Here, we aimed to identify genetic variants that may modify the association between MHT use and mammographic density. The study comprised 6,298 postmenopausal women from the Mayo Mammography Health Study and nine studies included in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We selected for evaluation 1327 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) showing the lowest P-values for interaction (P int) in a meta-analysis of genome-wide gene-environment interaction studies with MHT use on risk of breast cancer, 2541 SNPs in candidate genes (AKR1C4, CYP1A1-CYP1A2, CYP1B1, ESR2, PPARG, PRL, SULT1A1-SULT1A2 and TNF) and ten SNPs (AREG-rs10034692, PRDM6-rs186749, ESR1-rs12665607, ZNF365-rs10995190, 8p11.23-rs7816345, LSP1-rs3817198, IGF1-rs703556, 12q24-rs1265507, TMEM184B-rs7289126, and SGSM3-rs17001868) associated with mammographic density in genome-wide studies. We used multiple linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders to evaluate interactions between SNPs and current use of MHT on mammographic density. No significant interactions were identified after adjustment for multiple testing. The strongest SNP-MHT interaction (unadjusted P int <0.0004) was observed with rs9358531 6.5kb 5' of PRL. Furthermore, three SNPs in PLCG2 that had previously been shown to modify the association of MHT use with breast cancer risk were found to modify also the association of MHT use with mammographic density (unadjusted P int <0.002), but solely among cases (unadjusted P int SNP×MHT×case-status <0.02). The study identified potential interactions on mammographic density between current use of MHT and SNPs near PRL and in PLCG2, which require confirmation. Given the moderate size of the interactions observed, larger studies are needed to identify genetic modifiers of the association of MHT use with mammographic density.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Unspecified 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,778,510
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#880
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,615
of 261,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#21
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.