@entity0 risk by extent and type of XXXX : An update from the Nurses' Health Studies.

@entity1 @entity1137 @entity0 @entity5 @entity1373 @entity1558
BACKGROUND: @entity1 with @entity1373 ( @entity1137 ) on a benign breast biopsy specimen are at increased risk for the development of @entity0 . However, the relation between the type and extent of @entity1137 ( @entity1373 [ @entity1373 ] vs @entity1137 [ @entity1137 ]) and the magnitude of the @entity0 risk is not well defined. METHODS: A nested case-control study of @entity1558 and @entity0 risk was conducted. @entity1 with @entity0 and prior benign breast biopsy findings (488 cases) were matched to @entity1 with prior benign breast biopsy findings who were free from @entity0 (1907 controls). Benign breast biopsy slides were reviewed and categorized as nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, or @entity1137 ( @entity1373 or @entity1137 ). The number of foci of @entity1137 was also recorded. RESULTS: Among @entity1 with @entity1373 , the interrelation between the extent of atypia and @entity0 risk was not significant (odds ratio [OR] for 1 or 2 foci, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-5.6; OR for >= 3 foci, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P   =   .41). Similarly, although the risk with @entity1137 was higher for those with >= 3 foci than for those with <3 foci, the difference was not statistically significant (OR for 1 or 2 foci, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.7-10.0; OR for >= 3 foci, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.5-14.2; P   =   .19). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that the extent of @entity1373 or @entity1137 does not significantly contribute to @entity0 risk. The lack of a significant dose-response relation between the extent and type of atypia and @entity0 risk suggests that it would be premature to use the extent of atypia to influence management decisions for @entity1 with @entity1373 or @entity1137 . @entity5 2016;122:515-520.    2015 American @entity5 Society.
