RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-obligate precursor to invasive breast cancer (IBC). Studies have indicated differences in DCIS outcome based on race or ethnicity, but molecular differences have not been investigated. METHODS: We examined the molecular profile of DCIS by self-reported race (SRR) and outcome groups in Black (n = 99) and White (n = 191) women in a large DCIS case-control cohort study with longitudinal follow up. RESULTS: Gene expression and pathway analyses suggested that different genes and pathways are involved in diagnosis and ipsilateral breast outcome (DCIS or IBC) after DCIS treatment in White versus Black women. We identified differences in ER and HER2 expression, tumor microenvironment composition, and copy number variations by SRR and outcome groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that different molecular mechanisms drive initiation and subsequent ipsilateral breast events in Black versus White women.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Biomarcadores de Tumor/genética , Negro o Afroamericano/genética , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Neoplasias de la Mama/etnología , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/genética , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/patología , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/etnología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Variaciones en el Número de Copia de ADN , Perfilación de la Expresión Génica , Regulación Neoplásica de la Expresión Génica , Pronóstico , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Receptor ErbB-2/genética , Receptores de Estrógenos/metabolismo , Autoinforme , Microambiente Tumoral/genética , Blanco/genéticaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA) is a software for linking items abstracted into a data collection form for a systematic review to their locations in a study report. We conducted a randomized cross-over trial that compared DAA-facilitated single-data abstraction plus verification ("DAA verification"), single data abstraction plus verification ("regular verification"), and independent dual data abstraction plus adjudication ("independent abstraction"). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study is an online randomized cross-over trial with 26 pairs of data abstractors. Each pair abstracted data from six articles, two per approach. Outcomes were the proportion of errors and time taken. RESULTS: Overall proportion of errors was 17% for DAA verification, 16% for regular verification, and 15% for independent abstraction. DAA verification was associated with higher odds of errors when compared with regular verification (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.17) or independent abstraction (adjusted OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03-1.22). For each article, DAA verification took 20 minutes (95% CI: 1-40) longer than regular verification, but 46 minutes (95% CI: 26 to 66) shorter than independent abstraction. CONCLUSION: Independent abstraction may only be necessary for complex data items. DAA provides an audit trail that is crucial for reproducible research.