Introduction
The underlying mechanisms between obesity and breast cancer development are not completely understood and may differ by cancer subtype and body size measurement. A widely accepted model is that, in postmenopausal women, obesity increases circulating estrogen levels through their aromatization in adipose tissue and promotes estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer [
1]. This model is supported by the positive association between obesity vs. normal weight (body mass index [BMI], calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, ≥ 30 vs. < 25, respectively) and ER+ breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women [
2‐
4]. In the African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) Consortium, a similar association between BMI and ER+ breast cancer was also observed in Black women. However, the consortium data also showed that waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was associated with increased risk of ER+ or ER-negative (ER–) breast cancer in either premenopausal or postmenopausal Black women [
5]. This finding on the WHR and ER– tumor association suggests that other mechanisms associated with central obesity besides the estrogen pathway may play a role in breast cancer development.
The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway has been suggested as a mechanism underlying obesity and breast cancer development [
6]. This pathway is directly promoted by positive energy imbalance and insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) [
7,
8], and higher vs. lower concentrations of IGF-1 are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer [
9,
10]. Activated mTOR stimulates translation and inhibits autophagy, and lower mTOR activity decreases tumor incidence in animal models [
11]. We previously reported that genetic variants in the mTOR pathway, including
MTOR, were associated with increased risk of breast cancer [
12,
13], and there was a potential gene-environment interaction that the association for a variant was stronger in obese vs. normal-weight women [
13]. The mTOR pathway relies on protein phosphorylation for signaling [
8], and phosphorylated (p) mTOR protein expression levels in breast tumors were strongly associated with BMI and body fatness [
14]. However, research has not compared breast cancer cases of high levels of p-mTOR expression with healthy controls to reveal the etiologic role of mTOR as a mechanism of obesity and breast cancer development. Understanding such a mechanism is important to inform preventive strategies for obesity-related breast cancer.
Here, with a case-control design, we evaluated the associations of body fatness, measured by BMI, waist circumference (WC), WHR, percent body fat, and fat mass index, with breast cancer by the expression level of p-mTOR, which is evidence of mTOR activation [
14,
15]. We hypothesized that cases with p-mTOR overexpression tumors, but not those with p-mTOR negative/low expression tumors, would have increased odds of having higher rather than lower levels of body fatness compared to controls.
Results
We compared the ORs of p-mTOR overexpressed tumors defined by the 3 cutoff points of p-mTOR expression (25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) in association with body size (Supplemental Table
2). In general, the associations were stronger when 75th percentile was used as the cutoff compared to those with lower cutoffs. For example, the ORs for quartile (Q)4 vs. Q1 WC were 1.23 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.69) for the 25th percentile, 1.39 (95% CI = 0.95 to 2.05) for the 50th percentile, and 1.99 (95% CI = 1.12 to 3.50) for the 75th percentile levels of p-mTOR expression used to define p-mTOR overexpressed tumors.
Table
1 gives the selected characteristics, including body fatness, of cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors, cases with p-mTOR negative/low tumors, and controls. Patients who had p-mTOR overexpressed tumors were more likely than controls to have higher BMI, larger WC, higher WHR, and higher levels of body fat (all
P < 0.05). Patients who had p-mTOR negative/low tumors were more likely than controls to have BMI ≥ 30, larger WC, and higher WHR, but to a lesser extent compared to the differences between the cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors and controls. Compared with patients having p-mTOR negative/low tumors, patients with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had higher BMI, larger WC, and more body fat, and their tumors were more likely to be ER+ (87.0% vs. 59.5%).
Table 1
Selected characteristics of demographics, body fatness, and breast tumors of the cases and controls
Age, mean (SD), years | 53.8 (10.7) | 52.5 (11.1) | 48.6 (9.4) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.16 |
Race, no. (%) | | | | | | |
Black | 159 (82.8) | 415 (79.4 ) | 1270 (64.0) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.30 |
White | 33 (17.2) | 108 (20.6) | 713 (36.0) | | | |
Menopausal status, no. (%) | | | | | | |
Premenopausal | 86 (44.8) | 241 (46.1) | 982 (49.5) | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.76 |
Postmenopausal | 106 (55.2) | 282 (53.9) | 1001 (50.5) | | | |
BMI, kg/m2, no. (%) | | | | | | |
< 25.0 | 31 (16.2) | 121 (23.1) | 553 (27.9) | 0.001 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
25.0–29.9 | 49 (25.5) | 150 (28.7) | 534 (26.9) | | | |
30.0–34.9 | 51 (26.6) | 135 (25.8) | 400 (20.2) | | | |
≥ 35.0 | 61 (31.8) | 117 (22.4) | 496 (25.0) | | | |
WC, inches, no. | 190 | 513 | 1965 | | | |
Mean (SD) | 102.8 (17.9) | 98.2 (14.7) | 96.7 (17.1) | < 0.001 | 0.07 | 0.002 |
WHR, no. | 190 | 513 | 1965 | | | |
Mean (SD) | 0.88 (0.08) | 0.88 (0.09) | 0.86 (0.09) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.29 |
Percentage body fat, no. | 182 | 496 | 1893 | | | |
Mean (SD), % | 41.1 (7.6) | 39.2 (7.6) | 38.8 (8.8) | < 0.001 | 0.22 | 0.006 |
Fat mass index, no. | 181 | 495 | 1868 | | | |
Mean (SD), kg/m2 | 13.8 (5.1) | 12.3 (4.7) | 12.3 (5.7) | < 0.001 | 0.78 | < 0.001 |
ER status, no. (%) | | | | | | |
Positive | 167 (87.0) | 310 (59.5) | – | – | – | < 0.001 |
Negative | 25 (13.0) | 211 (40.5) | – | – | – | |
PR status, no. (%) | | | | | | |
Positive | 163 (85.8) | 308 (59.2) | – | – | – | < 0.001 |
Negative | 27 (14.2) | 213 (40.9) | – | – | – | |
HER2 status, no. (%) | | | | | | |
Positive | 31 (17.2) | 111 (22.0) | – | – | – | 0.18 |
Negative | 149 (82.8) | 394 (78.0) | – | – | – | |
Results from multivariable models (Table
2) showed that cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had a higher odds of being obese or very obese (BMI = 30.0–34.9 or ≥ 35.0) compared to controls, although the OR estimates were not significant. However, the association was different from that of cases with mTOR negative/low tumors compared to controls (
P-heterogeneity = 0.011). There was an inverse association between BMI ≥ 35 and p-mTOR negative/low tumors (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.52–0.95; P-trend = 0.017). For the measurement of central adiposity, cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had a higher odds of being at the Q3 (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.46 to 4.34) and Q4 (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.12 to 3.50) of WC compared to controls. Similarly, cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had a higher odds of being at the Q3 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.98) and Q4 (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.98) of WHR compared to controls. These associations of WC and WHR were not observed in cases with p-mTOR negative/low tumors compared to controls, although the associations did not differ by tumor p-mTOR status (
P-heterogeneity = 0.27 and 0.48, respectively). In the subgroups, the association of BMI with p-mTOR overexpressed breast cancer appeared stronger in postmenopausal women (
P-trend = 0.09) than premenopausal women (
P-trend = 0.92) (Supplemental Table
3). However, the associations of WC and WHR with p-mTOR overexpressed breast cancer were similar between premenopausal and postmenopausal women. In addition, the associations of WC and WHR with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors were observed in Black women, but not in White women (Supplemental Table
4). In the sensitivity analysis restricted to invasive breast cancer cases vs. controls, the overall associations of body size variables with p-mTOR overexpressed and p-mTOR negative/low breast cancer remained the same as those in all cases vs. controls (Supplemental Table
5).
Table 2
Odds ratios of breast cancer risk in relation to p-mTOR expression associated with body size measurements
BMI, kg/m2 |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 189/1973 | 522/1973 | |
< 25 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
25–29.99 | 1.22 (0.75–1.97) | 1.02 (0.77–1.35) | |
30–34.99 | 1.52 (0.92–2.47) | 1.11 (0.83–4.19) | |
≥ 35 | 1.31 (0.80–2.13) | 0.70 (0.52–0.95) | 0.011 |
P-trend | 0.31 | 0.017 | |
WC |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 187/1955 | 512/1955 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.67 (0.74–2.96) | 1.10 (0.81–1.50) | |
Q3 | 2.52 (1.46–4.34) | 1.24 (0.91–1.67) | |
Q4 | 1.99 (1.12–3.50) | 0.94 (0.69–1.30) | 0.27 |
P-trend | 0.029 | 0.64 | |
WHR |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 187/1955 | 512/1955 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.21 (0.71–2.06) | 1.30 (0.96–1.77) | |
Q3 | 1.82 (1.11–2.98) | 1.32 (0.97–1.80) | |
Q4 | 1.81 (1.11–2.98) | 1.34 (0.98–1.83) | 0.48 |
P-trend | 0.009 | 0.10 | |
In the analyses stratified by tumor ER status (Table
3), the difference in the association of BMI with breast cancer risk by p-mTOR expression status was significant among women with ER+ tumors (
P-heterogeneity = 0.015), but not those with ER– tumors. Also among women with ER+ tumors, larger (Q3 and Q4) vs. smaller (Q1) of WC and WHR were associated with increased risk of p-mTOR overexpressed tumors. Data among women with ER– tumors also suggest such associations, although the estimates were significant only for women in Q3 (OR = 4.70, 95% CI = 1.00 to 22.07 for WC and OR = 5.35, 95% CI = 1.16 to 24.71 for WHR). Similar results were observed for ER+/PR+ and ER–/PR– tumors (Supplemental Table
6).
Table 3
Odds ratios of breast cancer risk in relation to p-mTOR expression associated with body size measurements by tumor ER status
BMI, kg/m2 |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 164/1973 | 309/1973 | | 25/1973 | 211/1973 | |
< 25 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
25–29.99 | 1.29 (0.77–2.16) | 1.02 (0.72–1.45) | | 0.83 (0.23–2.99) | 1.00 (0.68–1.49) | |
30–34.99 | 1.48 (0.87–2.52) | 1.33 (0.92–1.91) | | 1.72 (0.54–5.48) | 0.84 (0.54–1.31) | |
≥ 35 | 1.39 (0.82–2.34) | 0.75 (0.51–1.11) | 0.015 | 0.90 (0.25–3.25) | 0.61 (0.39–0.96) | 0.09 |
P-trend | 0.27 | 0.18 | | 0.97 | 0.015 | |
WC |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 162/1955 | 304/1955 | | 25/1955 | 206/1955 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.65 (0.90–3.01) | 1.09 (0.74–1.60) | | 1.81 (0.32–10.1) | 1.09 (0.70–1.70) | |
Q3 | 2.28 (1.28–4.06) | 1.36 (0.93–1.98) | | 4.70 (1.00–22.07) | 1.04 (0.57–1.63) | |
Q4 | 1.93 (1.06–3.51) | 1.01 (0.67–1.50) | 0.26 | 2.60 (0.50–13.6) | 0.83 (0.52–1.32) | 0.55 |
P-trend | 0.050 | 0.97 | | 0.25 | 0.31 | |
WHR |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 162/1955 | 304/1955 | | 25/1955 | 206/1955 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.17 (0.57–2.04) | 1.34 (0.91–1.98) | | 1.58 (0.26–9.59) | 1.34 (0.85–2.10) | |
Q3 | 1.54 (0.91–2.60) | 1.47 (1.00–2.15) | | 5.35 (1.16–24.71) | 1.28 (0.80–2.03) | |
Q4 | 1.69 (1.01–2.84) | 1.37 (0.93–2.03) | 0.36 | 3.42 (0.68–17.16) | 1.60 (0.99–2.58) | 0.89 |
P-trend | 0.027 | 0.14 | | 0.08 | 0.38 | |
Cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had an increased odds of having higher percentage body fat and fat mass index compared to controls, and the associations tended to be inversed for cases with p-mTOR negative/low tumors compared to controls (both
P-heterogeneity = 0.001; Table
4), although the individual OR estimates were not significant. These patterns were similar when stratified by tumor ER status (all
P-heterogeneity < 0.05; Table
5).
Table 4
Odds ratios of breast cancer risk in relation to p-mTOR expression associated with body composition measurements
Percent body fat |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 179/1884 | 495/1884 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.26 (0.74–2.14) | 1.29 (0.95–1.74) | |
Q3 | 1.55 (0.93–2.58) | 0.98 (0.72–1.33) | |
Q4 | 1.31 (0.77–2.22) | 0.71 (0.51–0.99) | 0.001 |
P-trend | 0.27 | 0.015 | |
Fat mass index |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 179/1859 | 494/1859 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.22 (0.72–2.08) | 1.39 (1.03–1.88) | |
Q3 | 1.34 (0.79–2.26) | 1.08 (0.79–1.49) | |
Q4 | 1.42 (0.84–2.39) | 0.77 (0.55–1.07) | 0.001 |
P-trend | 0.21 | 0.008 | |
Table 5
Odds ratios of breast cancer risk in relation to p-mTOR expression associated with body composition measurements by tumor ER status
Percent body fat |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 156/1884 | 295/1884 | | 23/1884 | 198/1884 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.29 (0.73–2.28) | 1.10 (0.76–1.60) | | 1.08 (0.28–4.20) | 1.53 (0.99–2.36) | |
Q3 | 1.61 (0.93–2.78) | 1.06 (0.71–1.50) | | 1.20 (0.31–4.58) | 0.84 (0.52–1.36) | |
Q4 | 1.31 (0.74–2.32) | 0.67 (0.44–1.01) | 0.037 | 1.34 (0.36–4.95) | 0.73 (0.45–1.19) | 0.003 |
P-trend | 0.31 | 0.06 | | 0.64 | 0.040 | |
Fat mass index |
No. of cases/no. of controls | 155/1859 | 294/1859 | | 23/1859 | 198/1859 | |
Q1 | 1.00 [reference] | 1.00 [Reference] | | 1.00 [Reference] | 1.00 [reference] | |
Q2 | 1.26 (0.71–2.23) | 1.24 (0.85–1.80) | | 1.06 (0.27–4.41) | 1.59 (1.02–2.47) | |
Q3 | 1.36 (0.77–2.38) | 1.19 (0.81–1.74) | | 1.23 (0.33–4.61) | 0.89 (0.55–1.45) | |
Q4 | 1.48 (0.84–2.60) | 0.72 (0.47–1.10) | 0.011 | 1.09 (0.29–4.20) | 0.79 (0.48–1.30) | 0.004 |
P-trend | 0.19 | 0.040 | | 0.90 | 0.031 | |
Discussion
Our data suggested that breast cancer cases with overexpressed p-mTOR tumors had higher levels of body fatness than controls, and the association was not observed in cases with negative/low p-mTOR tumors compared to controls. Significant differences between the associations were observed for BMI, percent body fat, and fat mass index. Also, cases with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors had approximately twofold increased odds of having higher (Q3 and Q4) WC and WHR compared to controls. Our findings suggest that mTOR pathway activation indicated by p-mTOR expression may be relevant to the association between body fatness and breast cancer risk. To our knowledge, this study is among the first to examine the associations between body fatness measurements and the risk of breast tumors with p-mTOR overexpression.
Our stratified analyses on tumor ER status and menopausal status showed results consistent with our current understanding of obesity in association with breast cancer risk. If mTOR pathway activation is a mechanism by which body fatness influences breast cancer risk, the association of body fatness in relation to mTOR activation should be observed in postmenopausal women with ER+ tumors for obesity defined by high BMI, as the epidemiologic evidence indicates [
2‐
5]. In our data, we observed a trend that higher vs. lower BMI was associated with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors, and the association was mainly in ER+ tumors and in postmenopausal women. For central obesity, our findings are also consistent with the AMBER Consortium findings that higher vs. lower WHR was associated with ER+ or ER– tumors in either premenopausal or postmenopausal women [
5]. However, for ER+ tumors, it may be difficult to tease out the independent influence of body fatness in mTOR from the hormonal influence of estrogen synthesized by aromatase in the adipose tissue. The mTOR pathway cross-talks with the estrogen signaling pathway and can be promoted by estrogens [
25], and the protein expression of mTOR and p-mTOR was higher in ER+ than ER– tumors in our study population [
14]. On the contrary, for ER– tumors, our findings are considered less confounded by ER. We found indications of associations of WC and WHR with p-mTOR overexpressed tumors among women with ER– tumors. The OR estimates were imprecise because the number of cases with p-mTOR-overexpressed and ER– tumors was small (
N = 25). Our findings require replication with a larger sample of ER– tumors. If confirmed, our findings suggest that targeting the mTOR pathway using pharmacological approaches, such as metformin [
26,
27] and other mTOR inhibitors, may be able to prevent a subset of ER+ and ER– tumors.
We observed an inverse association between BMI ≥ 35 vs. < 25 and p-mTOR-negative/low breast cancer overall and among women with ER– tumors. The association was comparable for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women (data not shown). Similarly, in the WCHS and AMBER Consortium, BMI ≥ 30 or 35 was associated with a lower risk of ER– or triple-negative breast cancer in postmenopausal women [
5,
20]. The explanation for the association is unclear. We showed that the association might exist only for tumors with p-mTOR negative/low expression but not tumors with p-mTOR overexpression. Thus, our findings suggest that mechanisms other than mTOR may explain the inverse association between BMI and ER– breast cancer.
We acknowledge that the body fatness measurement in this study may not accurately reflect the specific adiposity compartments that are most relevant to mTOR pathway activation and breast cancer etiology. The body composition of participants was assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis, and the method may have larger errors among those with lower vs. higher percent of body fat [
28]. BMI is not an accurate measure of body fatness as body weight involves the weights of muscle and other body compartments [
29]. WC and WHR are strongly correlated with abdominal adiposity [
30]. In abdominal adiposity, visceral adipocytes may more strongly influence insulin sensitivity and organ tissues than subcutaneous adipocytes do [
30]. Future research using body fat measurements based on imaging [
31,
32] is warranted to reveal the role of mTOR pathway activation in association with specific adipose tissue compartments.
The strengths of our study include rigorous and quantitative measurements of protein expression in breast tumors and multiple measurements of body fatness. We manually annotated the stained tissue to minimize influences from other tissue components, such as the stroma, and performed automated imaging analysis to derive objective scores. The continuous H-score has the flexibility to modify cutoffs for defining p-mTOR overexpression. In addition, body fatness was measured by trained staff who used a standardized protocol. The sample included a relatively large number of Black women, a population with high prevalence of obesity in general and central obesity [
24] as well as ER– tumors. Also, we were able to adjust for a wide range of reproductive and hormonal risk factors in our statistical analyses.
Currently, there is no standard approach to define the activation of mTOR pathway; however, correlating with a phenotype that is biologically relevant appears to be a feasible approach. In a panel of four mTOR pathway makers (mTOR, p-mTOR, p-AKT, and p-P70S6K) that we evaluated in patients with breast cancer, p-mTOR has the strongest association in relation to body fatness [
14]. In addition, protein expression levels of p-MTOR were modestly correlated with p-AKT and p-p70S6K (
r = 0.26–0.31) and highly correlated with total phosphoprotein levels (
r = 0.71), which is a summation of the three phosphoproteins (Supplemental Table
7). Also, in breast cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), p-mTOR expression was also correlated with p-AKT, p-p70S6K, and a mTOR signature (
r = 0.21–0.45) that was derived from expression levels of seven phosphoproteins in the pathway (Supplemental Table
7). Using a larger panel of phosphoproteins in the mTOR pathway to evaluate the associations is warranted for future studies.
Several other limitations of our study should be noted. First, as an inherent bias of case-control studies, body fatness was assessed after breast cancer diagnosis among cases. The observed associations might have been affected if the participants had changes in weight or body composition because of breast cancer development and treatment [
33]. Studies with a prospective design are warranted to confirm our observations. Also, our study design limits the ability to draw an inference because tissue samples were unavailable among the controls to assess the p-mTOR protein expression. Reasons other than body fatness or excessive energy intake, such as mutations, may increase p-mTOR expression because tumor growth is autonomous. Second, there is no standard cutoff or phenotype that can be used as a reference for defining p-mTOR overexpression. The cutoff we proposed may not be applicable to other populations. Because protein phosphorylation is part of the normal physiology of mTOR signaling, we believe it is reasonable to set a higher expression level of p-mTOR as a cutoff for defining overexpression. However, future research is needed to determine the cutoff of p-mTOR expression that leads to physiologic and pathological changes. In addition, it is unknown whether p-mTOR expression changes associated with body fatness were long-term or short-term. Third, the investigation of different measurements of body fatness resulted in multiple comparisons, potentially leading to false-positive results. This concern was minimal as we performed planned analyses with a priori hypotheses. Lastly, the percentage of Black women in cases was higher than that in controls due to the study design. We were unable to conclude race-specific risks, particularly in White women, because of the low number of White women in p-mTOR-overexpressed cases.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.