Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Breast Cancer in the Arabian Gulf Countries

Altmetrics

Downloads

207

Views

138

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Humaid O. Al-Shamsi  *
,Nadia Abdelwahed,Amin Abyad,Ibrahim Abu-Gheida,Mehdi Afrit,Tasneem Abu ElFuol,Ryad Alasas,Bilal Lababidi,
Prasanta Dash,Mudhasir Ahmad,
Norbert W Dreier,Urfan ul haq,Thanda Lucy Ann Joshua,Sonia Otsmane,Anwar Al-Nouri,
Aydah Al-Awadhi,Syed Hammad Tirmazy,Faisal Alterkait,
Shimaa Elsabae,Nyla Khan,Nehad Albastaki,Yoginee Sonawane,
Mohammed Jouda,Frea Perdawood,
Faryal Iqbal,Hassan Jaafar

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

19 September 2023

Posted:

20 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Breast cancer stands as the prevailing malignancy across all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. In this literature review, we highlighted the incidence and trend of BC in the GCC. Most of the studies reported a consistent increase in BC incidence over the past decades, which was particularly attributed to the adoption of a westernized lifestyle in the region and the implications of emerging risk factors and other environmental and societal factors, the increase in screening uptake, as well as the improvement in data collection and reporting in the GCC. The data about BC risk factors in GCC was limited. In this geographic region, breast cancer frequently manifests with distinctive characteristics, including an early onset, typically occurring before the age of 50, an advanced stage at presentation, and a higher pathological grade. Additionally, it often exhibits more aggressive features such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity or the presence of triple-negative (TN) attributes, particularly among younger patients. Despite the growing body of literature on breast cancer in the GCC, data pertaining to survival rates are, regrettably, meager. Reports on breast cancer survival rates emanating from the GCC region are largely confined to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In the UAE, predictive modeling reveals 2-year and 5-year survival rates of 97% and 89%, respectively, for the same period under scrutiny. These rates, when compared to Western counterparts such as Australia (89.5%) and Canada (88.2%), fall within the expected range. Conversely, Saudi Arabia reports a notably lower 5-year survival rate, standing at 72%. This disparity in survival rates underscores the need for further research directed towards elucidating risk factors and barriers that hinder early detection and screening. Additionally, there is a pressing need for expanded data reporting on survival outcomes within the GCC. In sum, a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of breast cancer dynamics in this region is imperative to inform effective strategies for prevention, early detection, and improved patient outcomes.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Oncology and Oncogenics

1. Introduction

Recently, breast cancer (BC) has surpassed lung cancer to become the most diagnosed cancer in the world, with approximately 2,3 million new cases diagnosed in 2020, while still globally contributing to the top 5 leading causes of cancer mortality.[1] It is commonly known that BC incidence rates in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are lower than in westernized countries; nevertheless, it is postulated that the anticipated demographic shift from a younger to an older population, increasing life expectancy, and the unique and evolving combination of lifestyle factors in the GCC would lead to a substantial increase in cancer incidence and mortality, including BC, over the next two decades[2] .
In light of this anticipated increase, proper planning and decision-making require reliable, up-to-date, and accurate data to ensure effective cancer control and the provision of optimal care for patients with BC. We, therefore, aimed to review available literature from the past decade on BC in the GCC to compile, summarize, and broadly evaluate the available evidence with the aim of highlighting existing gaps and needs in BC research in the region and accordingly inform and prioritize future regional and country-level research strategies.

2. Literature Review

We performed a literature search to review and collect research and/or reports on BC epidemiology, diagnosis, and management published between 2011 and 2022 from the GCC countries, with a focus on the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We reviewed PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles, searched the ASCO and ESMO congresses for relevant abstracts presented during the past 5 years, and included the most recent GLOBOCAN and national cancer registry reports for each of the six countries.

3. Epidemiology of BC in the GCC

We extracted BC epidemiological data from three sources: 1) the GLOBOCAN database[3], which estimates data based on projection methods and modelling and is highly dependent on the quality of data in the corresponding or neighboring countries. 2) The national cancer registries; these were not always consistent in their reporting and publishing of yearly and updated data, and similar to the GLOBOCAN data, are highly dependent on the quality of surveillance data in the countries and the coverage and completeness of the data. The most recent reports published from these registries were from 2019 for the UAE,[4] 2018 for Qatar,[5] 2018 for Bahrain[6] and 2019 for Oman.[7], 2017 for Kuwait[65], and 2015 for Saudi Arabia[66]. Available data from these reports and the GLOBOCAN database are presented in Table 1. It was evident from these reports that BC was the leading cancer in all six countries, nevertheless, country comparisons of incidence rates and other figures are difficult due to differences in the year of reporting, the reported measures, and the considered populations (nationals vs. non-nationals). 3) Finally, epidemiological studies are another source of epidemiological data, but looking back at the past 10 years, such studies have been very scarce. Most of the studies that we reviewed were small-scale, single-center studies or systematic reviews looking at GCC or Arab countries collectively, reporting on historical data, and which are unlikely to be reflective of the actual BC status in the individual countries. However, these studies can usually hint at trends in BC incidence and other measures, which are summarized herein.

3.1. Incidence

Most of the studies reported a consistent increase in BC incidence over the past decades, which was particularly attributed to the adoption of a westernized lifestyle in the region and the implications of emerging risk factors and other environmental and societal factors, as well as to the increase in screening uptake[8]. Both citizens and non-citizens of the GCC region experienced breast cancer earlier than women in comparable high-income nations[68].
Data from the Kuwait Cancer Registry showed that the annual number of new cases increased remarkably from 212 cases in 2012 to 608 cases in 2017[10,65]. The age standardized rate (ASR) was 61.0 and 41.3 cases per 100,000 populations for Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti females, respectively. Breast cancer among males represents <1.0% of breast cancer cases[65]. As for Kuwaiti females, BC had the highest incidence; it increased by three folds over the last 44 years (18.5 to 63.5 cases per 100,000 people per year). The trend between the ASR of Kuwaiti female breast cancer cases over the time period of 2013-2017 is 64.6 per 100,000, where the crude rate is 47.85 per 100,000, while the trend of non-Kuwaiti female breast cancer cases over the time period is 45.2 per 100,000, and the crude rate is 29.06 per 100,000[65].
A systematic review looking at cancer trends in the UAE confirmed that BC ranked first among female cancers between 1998 and 2001, with an ASR ranging between 17.1 and 19.2 per 100,000[11]. As of 2019, there were 883 cases of BC in the UAE, accounting for 20.2% of all malignant cases, according to more recent data from the National Cancer Registry of the UAE[4]. Data from the Arab region (including, among others, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE) also described a gradual rise in BC cases between 1990 and 2016, similar to the global trend, and reported a BC incidence of 28 per 100,000 in 2016, [12] nevertheless, the authors noted that, although high, the incidence was still lower than the global incidence of 46 per 100,000 and remarkably lower than the incidence in Western Europe (148 per 100,000). Also, the burden in terms of disability-adjusted life years was lower in Arab countries compared with Western countries[12]. The most recent available data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 80 studies from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (including Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and the UAE) reported a pooled ASR of 37.1 per 100,000 person-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5, 39.8) during 2011–2019 and an increasing trend between 2005 and 2019. However, the trend varied between countries and regions based on the quality of the data[10]. Data from the Qatar National Cancer Registry in 2018 shows that Qatar has the ASR, which is 87.07 per 100,000 of the female population at risk, whereas the Saudi Cancer Registry from 2015 shows the ASR at 24.3 per 100,000 (among Saudi females) and 29.8 per 100,000 (among non-Saudi females)[5,66]. The Oman Cancer Registry shows the highest age-specific incident rate for BC among Omani female population was 112.2 at the age of 50[7].

3.2. Risk Factors

Research about BC risk factors in the six countries was limited. Our search identified one study from Qatar describing the use of BC risk assessment to better guide the clinician’s decision about screening and clinical management. The study used the Gail model to evaluate the BC risk among 1338 women aged 35 years and older selected from 12 primary health care centers in Qatar between July 2012 and June 2014. The study reported mean 5-year and lifetime BC risks of 1.12 ± 0.52 and 10.57 ± 3.1, respectively, among the women of Qatar. A linear regression analysis identified significant predictors of the 5-year and lifetime risks, such as age, age at menarche, age at first birth, family history, and age at menopause. Overall, the Gail model was found to be an appropriate risk assessment tool in the Gulf. Nevertheless, one of its limitations, as reported by the authors, is that it does not take into consideration BC among second-degree relatives as a risk factor, and it may incorrectly estimate the risk of BC as reported in previous studies given that risk factors differ between ethnicities[13]. A systematic review looking at the association between obesity, physical inactivity, and BC incidence in the GCC did not report any association between BC and neither obesity nor physical inactivity in the five countries of interest between 1999 and 2019[14]. One study looked at the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and BC risk and found that women with serum 25(OH)D levels lower than 20 ng/mL were at higher risk of BC (odds ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.61–8.23) after adjusting for age, body mass index, and menopause status[15].

3.3. Financial Burden

In terms of financial burden, a review looking at the economic costs associated with non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including BC in the GCC, concluded that only 0.5% of the annual total direct medical costs of selected NCDs, which were estimated at $16.7 billion, were due to BC, implicating that BC was less common compared with other NCDs such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease[16].

4. BC Presentation in the Region

Data from the national cancer registries provide limited insights around the presentation of BC in the region, given that they are very heterogeneous in terms of collected data, population coverage (nationals vs. non-nationals), and completeness, are not up-to-date, and therefore do not provide an accurate description of the clinicopathologic features of BC in the region that may be evolving over time. Some clinicopathologic features retrieved from the corresponding national registries are presented in Table 1.
There were quite a few studies (single centers, reporting on findings from the national registries, or even systematic reviews) describing clinicopathologic features of BC in the five respective countries. Overall, it was consistently reported across these studies that in the region, BC was characterized by an early onset (generally before 50), an advanced stage, and a higher pathologic grade, as well as more aggressive features such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity or triple negative (TN) features, especially in young patients.

4.1. Age at Diagnosis

In Oman, a study reported that more than half of 14,109 cancer cases (53.5%) diagnosed between 1996 and 2010 were diagnosed below 50 years of age, and the highest age-specific incidence rates were between 50-54 years (57.1 per 100,000) and 45-49 years (46.7 per 100,000)[17]. Through Oman Cancer registry sources, the highest frequency of incident cases among Omani female nationals was at the age of 35 (n=56)[7]. In the UAE, the average age at diagnosis among 988 patients diagnosed with BC at Tawam Hospital between January 2008 and December 2012 was 48 years[18]. Another more recent study from Sharjah Breast Care Centre, reported a mean age at diagnosis of 51 ± 12 years in 94 patients diagnosed with BC between March 2016 and July 2018[15]. Data from Bahrain from the periods 2000 – 2010 and 2017 – 2019 reported a mean age at diagnosis of 50.9 and 51.8 in 1,005[19] and 216 BC patients, respectively[20]. The median age at diagnosis of female breast cancer among the Saudi female population was 50 years (ranged between 14 and 108 years), and the number of BC incident cases peaked in the age group of 45-49 (n= 356)[66].
The GCCR recorded that 25.5% of all BC cases occurred in women less than 40 years old in the GCC,[9] and a review reported an overall mean age at BC diagnosis of 50.6 years in the GCC countries compared with 60 years in western countries.[8] Another review from the Arab countries mentioned that the median age at diagnosis in the Arab population was about 48 years and that about two-thirds of women with BC were younger than 50 years.[21] These review papers also highlight the early onset of BC among Arab countries and the GCC in comparison with western populations, where the highest age-specific incidence rates were in the higher age groups, and explain that this might be primarily due to a younger population structure in the region as well as to differences in environmental factors, genetic makeup, screening practices, and disease management[8,21]. One study, however, did not find any significant difference in BC incidence during 1990-2016 between younger women in Arab countries (30-59) and their global counterparts, while rates among older women (60 and above) were significantly lower[12].

4.2. Prognosis and Survival

To our knowledge, a single-institutional retrospective analysis analyzing 988 patients with a follow-up of 35 months was the only study examining BC survival in the UAE. The predicted 2-year and 5-year survival rates for the same period were 97% and 89%, respectively, and were within the normal ranges when compared to countries in the Western world such as Australia (89.5%) and Canada (88.2%). Comparing Kuwait (75.2%) and Qatar (71.95%), two countries in the same region, the 5-year survival rate is also high [69,70,71]. According to the 2017 annual report of the Kuwait Cancer Registry, the overall 5-year survival rate of Kuwaiti BC patients was 90.5%[65]. According to Kuwait’s NCR status at the last follow-ups, 95% of Kuwaitis were live and 5% were dead; meanwhile, 98% of Kuwaitis were live and 2% were dead [65]. In the Qatar National Cancer Registry (QNCR), 894 incidences of female breast cancer were identified among the Qatari population; out of them, 699 (78%) are still alive[5].
Breast cancer represents the commonest cancer in Saudi females and in the Saudi population in general. Despite a 5-year observed survival of 72%, this represents a slightly lower value than western countries, though most of them report relative 5-year survival[72,73,79]. Reasons behind a lower survival are likely related to a relatively high percentage of presentation in advanced stage (12.5%) and low rate of screening[74,79]. Screening for breast cancer has developed in several phases yet has not materialized into a national screening program[75,76,77,78,79]. Several opportunistic screening campaigns took place in several cities of Saudi Arabia mostly by non-governmental organizations[78,79].

4.3. Stage and Grade

The GCCR reports that up to 58% of the patients present at a late stage with regional or distant metastases[9]. A review of data from the Kuwait Cancer Registry showed that there was an overall decreasing trend in localized and regional stages between 2000-2004, 2005-2009 and 2010-2013, and an increasing trend in distant and unknown stages[22]. About 39.3% of all breast cancers presented with regional extension, 13.9%, with distant metastasis and an unknown extent of disease observed in about 22.7%. Stage II was the most frequent presentation at diagnosis: 28.0%[65]. A report from the Kuwait Cancer Registry shows the following stage distribution for breast cancer cases diagnosed in 2017 among Kuwaiti nationals: stage I: 17.0%, II: 29.0%, III:20.0%, IV: 12.0%, unknown: 21%, and Tis: 1%, whereas among non-Kuwaiti nationals: stage I: 10%, II: 27%, III: 28%, IV: 16%, Unknown: 16%, and Tis: 3%65. Although the UAE Cancer Registry does not have complete data for the stage at presentation, it is evident there is a relative decline in stage IV disease, with the percentage of localized disease increasing from 10% in 2011 to 25% in 2017[4]. This may reflect improvements in mammography screening and uptake because of public awareness[67]. A report from the Oman Cancer Registry shows an increasing trend for stage I: 13% and stage II: 27% from 2018 to 2019, where 2019 data shows stage I: 27% and stage II: 34%. While Stage III shows a drastic decline from 30% in 2018 to 17% in 2019[7].
It is discussed that the stage at diagnosis is largely driven by the effectiveness of available screening and public awareness programs in the country and that the high number of cancer cases with an “unknown’ stage might be associated with the unique biology of BC in the Arab region[8].

4.4. Histology

In terms of histological subtypes, all the reviewed studies confirmed the data from the national registries’ reports[4]–[7] with infiltrating ductal carcinoma being the most common BC histology.[8,15,19,21,26,27]. Among the respective recent national cancer registries of Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, Oman has the highest rate of infiltrating duct carcinoma at 90.3%[5,6,7,66].

4.5. Molecular Subtypes

In Oman, the luminal A subtype was the most common among 542 cases of BC diagnosed between 2006 and 2010.[17] Similarly, luminal A was the most common in Bahrain (60.2% of 216 patients), followed by luminal B (19%), TN (13.4%), and HER2+ (7.4%)[26]. In the UAE, a short letter to the editor reported an overall incidence of estrogen receptor positive (ER+), progesterone receptor positive (PR+), HER2+, and TN tumors of 59.3%, 51.0%, 39.1%, and 20.8%, respectively, among 192 patients diagnosed with BC between April 2008 and May 2009[28]. More recently, a study reported positive hormone receptor (HR) status in 62 out of 94 patients with BC (66.0%) between 2016 and 2018[15]. Additionally, data from MD Anderson Cancer Center on 78 Arab women diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 revealed an ER positivity of 69.2% and a PR positivity of 65.4%. HER2+ status was reported in 19.2% of the patients, while 26.9% had TN disease[24]. Data from the KCCC reported TN disease in 363 patients out of 2980 (12.2%) between 1999 and 2009[23,29]. One paper looked at the changes in the biological features between primary and recurrent tumors in 70 patients who presented between 2009 and 2012 in Kuwait and reported a decrease in ER and PR positivity from 61.4% to 58.6% and 61.4% to 44.3%, respectively, with an increase in HER2 positivity in 5.7% of cases[30].

4.6. Association of Clinicopathologic Features with Selected Factors

Several studies looked at the association between clinicopathologic characteristics and selected factors. The most consistent finding across these studies was the observation that younger patients were more likely to have HER2+, TN, or basal-like cancers as compared with older patients[15,20,28,31]. Additionally, younger patients were more likely to have tumors of a higher stage (p=0.012) and grade (p=0.031) and were more likely to have lymph node metastases (88.6% versus 56.1%) (p=0.0004) and distant metastases (26.7% versus 6.8%) (p=0.005), leading to a worse prognosis[20]. Conversely, a study from Bahrain (n=1005) did not find any association between age at diagnosis and tumor grade, metastasis, or stage of cancer[19]. One study from Oman observed that high-grade tumors were most common in the basal-like subtype (41.0%) and lowest in the luminal A subtype (19.0%), while a higher stage at presentation (stages III and IV) was more common in HER2+ tumors (59.0%).[31] Looking specifically at the TN subtype, a study from Bahrain (N=216) found that this subtype was associated with higher grade tumors compared with other subtypes (p=0.001),[26] which was confirmed by an interim analysis from the TRIPOLI study, which demonstrated that compared to patients >40 years, patients ≤40 years were more likely to have grade 3 tumors (62.3% versus 53.5%; p=0.116) and more likely to have stage III/IV tumors (41.4% versus 32.7%; p=0.038)[27]. Finally, one study from Qatar explored the co-prevalence of high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in 74 BC tissues and found the presence of HPV was associated with TNBC (p=0.008), while the co-presence of HPV and EBV was significantly associated with luminal A subtype (p=0.02), tumor grade (p=0.04), and tumor stage (p=0.04)[32].

5. Genetic and Molecular Profiling

5.1. BRCA1/2 and Other Genes

The involvement of BRCA mutations in familial and sporadic BC has been fairly explored in the GCC, but findings have been inconclusive across studies, and other genes have been suspected to be implicated in the onset or progression of BC, of which BRIP1 was the most reported.
A study looked at the frequency of BRCA1/2 mutations in high-risk affected and unaffected patients referred to the hereditary and high-risk clinic in Qatar between March 2013 and December 2016 based on either personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers. Of the 167 subjects who underwent genetic testing, 38.0% had BRCA mutations, 41 of whom had BC [33]. A study from Bahrain identified two deleterious mutations, BRCA1 c.4850C>A and BRCA2 c.67+2T>C, in two patients who appeared to have a strong family history of BC, with an overall prevalence rate of 8.0% in 25 unrelated females diagnosed with familial BC[34]. In the UAE, among 309 patients with BC undergoing genetic testing from 2016 to 2018, 19 positive susceptibility genes were identified in 130 cases who tested positive for mutations. In 34.6% of the cases, pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were identified, with BRCA2 being the most commonly identified mutated gene in 29 cases, followed by BRCA1 in 25 cases. A positive family history of BRCA1/2 mutations was found in 29 cases out of 66 (53.7%) with a family history of BC[35].
In contrast, other studies found only a minimal to no role for BRCA mutations in BC, with the involvement of a variety of other genes. A study from Oman looking at 50 BC patients and 30 healthy individuals and/or carriers of benign tumors undergoing biopsy and BC surgery between January 2012 and April 2014 found that the majority of patients (84.0%) did not have a family history of BC and did not exhibit any BRCA1/2 mutations, indicating that such mutations are unlikely to play a key role in sporadic BCs[36]. An earlier study did not detect any significant mutational rates in BRCA1/2 either,[37] which led to the investigation of other genes linked to BRCA1/2 that could be involved in the onset of BC, such as BRIP1. BRIP1 was found to potentially interact with BRCA1/2 as an oncogene, albeit previously demonstrated as a tumor suppressor gene. It was expressed five times more in breast tumors as compared to normal tissue. Further analyses showed that BRIP1 overexpression was associated with poor overall survival (OS) and with the luminal A and B subtypes[36]. A cross-sectional study that looked at 78 Arab women diagnosed with BC at MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2010 and December 2018 and who underwent standardized hotspot mutation testing using 46- or 50-gene multiplexes, identified five somatic mutations that were most expressed in these patients: TP53 (23.1%) and PIK3CA (15.4%), followed by PTEN, APC, and KIT (7.7% each). The germline BRCA1 mutation was reported in 8/27 (29.6%), patients while no germline BRCA2 mutations were identified[24]. One study from Oman, using microarray gene expression profiling to analyze gene expression in luminal A, luminal B, and TN breast tumors compared with normal or benign breast tissue, identified more than 1,000 differentially expressed genes potentially associated with signaling pathways playing a key role in malignant transformation of benign tumors[38]. Further, a first-of-its kind study of RNA-Seq transcriptome analysis of BC from the GCC region using next-generation sequencing and the ingenuity pathway analysis platform to understand signaling aberrations in BC biology identified 1,108 upregulated and 518 downregulated transcripts when the transcriptome of BC was compared to adjacent normal tissue from six BC patients. Additionally, BC tissue exhibited marked enrichment in genes promoting cellular proliferation, migration, survival, and DNA replication and repair.[39] Other studies looked at the role of some other genes, such as IGF1 cytosine adenine (CA)[40] and p53[41] in BC risk, while a sequencing study from Qatar analyzed the role of ER 1 gene mutations on drugs binding affinity to ER[42].

5.2. Value of Genetic Profiling

We identified two studies from the UAE and Kuwait looking at the value of Oncotype DX testing in clinical practice and treatment decisions. One study looked particularly at the value of Oncotype DX testing on adjuvant treatment decisions based on a retrospective analysis of data for 50 female node-negative ER+ early BC patients who underwent Oncotype DX between October 2009 and June 2012 in the UAE. The test was successful in 47 patients, and the proportion of patients with low, intermediate, and high recurrence scores was 53.2%, 40.4%, and 6.4%, respectively. Risk assessment based on the St. Gallen criteria and Oncotype DX testing were concordant in approximately half of the patients. Treatment decisions were changed (pre-testing vs. post-testing) in 28% of patients, mostly from chemoendocrine therapy to endocrine therapy alone, with a statistically significant change in the low recurrence group (from 56.0 to 8.0%; p=0.0005)[43]. The second study, from Kuwait, showed that of 100 patients, the Oncotype DX assay resulted in a change in treatment recommendations in 37.0% of patients, of whom 29 were recommended endocrine therapy instead of chemoendocrine therapy. In addition, the study demonstrated a strong association between recurrence score and clinicopathologic features such as tumor grade, Ki67 index, and luminal type. The study concluded that, based on these observations, these features can guide the use of Oncotype DX in specific groups of patients[44].

5.3. Other Biomarkers

We found several studies from the GCC looking at the significance of specific markers in the presentation and prognosis of BC. A study from Oman found a strong association between metastasis and younger age (women ≤40 years), lymphovascular invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) expression, indicating that EMT could possibly predict a higher metastatic potential in tumors and suggesting EMT expression as a surrogate marker for predicting metastasis[45]. In addition, EMT was found to be associated with Ki67 PI and basal-like tumors[45]. Further, the expression of nucleostemin was found to be higher in less differentiated, more advanced stage, larger, and lymph-node positive tumors, as well as in more aggressive molecular subtypes (HER2+ and TN) when evaluated in 51 patient archival specimens from the UAE, although none of these associations reached statistical significance[46]. A study from Oman observed a statistically significant relationship between high elastosis and ER positivity (p=0.015) and HER2- status (p=0.045) in 80 female patients who were not treated with neoadjuvant therapy from 2009 to 2019, suggesting that elastosis may be used as a surrogate marker for ER positivity and HER2 negativity in BC[47]. A study from the UAE found that A20 expression evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was associated with early grade 1 BC (p<0.001) in all molecular subtypes, suggesting its use as a biomarker for early cancer. A20 overexpression was also associated with a lower OS rate in patients treated with endocrine therapy[48]. Another study found that insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) membranous and mixed (membranous and cytoplasmic) expression in BC cells was evident in HR+HER2− cases in contrast with HR−HER2+ cases, which showed cytoplasmic or diminished IGF1R expression, suggesting that luminal subtypes may benefit from targeted IGFR therapy[49]. Trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) expression was found to be associated with residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 133 cases from the UAE, suggesting its expression is associated with increased resistance to chemotherapy. Moreover, there was significant co-expression of TFF3 with antiapoptotic proteins AKT1 (p=0.0365), BCl2 (p=0.0152), and NF Kappa-B (p=0.0243) in breast carcinoma cases with residual carcinoma following neoadjuvant therapy, which reinforces the role of TFF3 in chemoresistance.[50] Vitamin D receptor (VDR) was also assessed by IHC in 120 Kuwaiti female BC fixed tissues and was found altered in BC, with its absence being associated with high-grade differentiated tumors (p=0.01) and its cytoplasmic expression being associated with lymph node-positive tumors (p=0.03)[51]. A study from Oman demonstrated that the expression patterns of Akt1, E2F1, and their phosphorylated forms in BC tissues correlated with clinicopathological characteristics, cancer progression, overall survival (OS), and response to chemotherapy[52].
A study from the UAE found that the immune profile of the tumor microenvironment (TME) of BC patients is not reflected in the circulation and that there is no association between levels of circulating myeloid cells and patients’ TNM stage or histological grade, highlighting the role of myeloid cells specifically in the TME of BC patients but not in the peripheral blood and suggesting some potential therapeutic modalities to target the expanded immunosuppressive populations in the TME[53]. Another study from the UAE looked at whether axillary ultrasound in combination with a biopsy (AUS +/- Bx) can predict the involvement of the non-sentinel lymph nodes (NSLN) and suggested that in operable breast cancer patients, a negative AUS+/- Bx may be a predictor of non-involvement of the NSLN[54].

6. Management and Outcomes

6.1. Management Trends

Data on BC management trends in the region was very scarce and far from representative of current practice. In the 2018 QNCR, 319 (89%) of the total cases were reported with treatment information. Among them, the top 5 treatment modalities were: Chemotherapy / Surgery (23.20%); Surgery (19.12%); Chemotherapy / Radiation Therapy / Surgery (15.67%); Chemotherapy / Hormonal Therapy / Radiation Therapy / Surgery (12.23%); Hormonal Therapy / Radiation Therapy / Surgery (8.78%)5. While data from the KCCC reported the treatment type for 359 patients with TNBC between 1999 and 2009[55]. Recently, KCCC reported the type of treatment among Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti for the year 2017, where 82.3% of Kuwaiti nationals had surgery; 60.8% had chemotherapy; 65.8% had radiotherapy; and 74.0% had hormonal-based treatment. On the other hand, 77.6% of non-Kuwaitis had surgery, 70.5% had chemotherapy; 65.9% had radiotherapy; and 67.5% had hormonal-based treatment[65].
The TRIPOLI study possibly provides a more valid description of current treatment strategies as it reports on more recent data collected between 2017 and 2019; it describes that out of the 387 TNBC cases from Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar, among other Arab countries, with non-metastatic disease who started treatment during that period, 217 patients (56.1%) had upfront surgery and 170 patients (43.9%) started with neoadjuvant chemotherapy[27].

6.2. Outcomes

Data on outcomes from the GCC was also scarce. Besides data from the GLOBOCAN database[3], only the UAE’s and Bahrain’s national registries[4,6] reported BC deaths (Table 1). Looking at original papers published from the five countries between 2011 – 2021, most analyzed datasets were of patients diagnosed before 2000 and up to the year 2012, [8,11,20,23,29,54]–[56] also one meta-analysis looking at survival rates in patients with BC from the Eastern Mediterranean region included data within the same timeframe[59]. Only a couple papers reported outcome data up to year 2015[25,60] with the absence of any outcome data from the region thereafter.

7. Consensus and Recommendations from the GCC

During the past decade, we could find three expert opinion pieces involving a collaboration from the GCC; one was framed by the UAE Oncology Task Force in 2019 and outlined challenges and opportunities in BC care while proposing recommendations for policymakers and healthcare practitioners for the delivery of high-quality care to BC patients[61]. The other two[62,63] involved one expert from the UAE among other international experts from countries like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico, Moscow, and South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan and were therefore not specific to the regional GCC context, and while one focused on treatment selection in HR+HER2- metastatic BC (mBC),[63] the second was more focused on BRCA testing and management of HR+ HER2- mBC in the era of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi)[62].

8. Conclusion and Implications

Our review of the BC literature highlights primarily the evolving role of national cancer registries in the GCC countries, given the inconsistent and incomplete reporting of BC data in the past and the very limited information they provide which has been improving over last few years with better detailed reporting. In addition, there is an overall paucity of data, mostly around the epidemiology of BC in the GCC, treatment strategies, and management outcomes in BC, and the scarce available data are predominantly outdated and therefore not necessarily reflective of the current status of BC in the GCC, especially given that the approach for treating BC, and as a result, patient outcomes are continuously evolving with the emergence of new therapies. Adding to that, the adoption of treatment strategies is highly affected and driven by the availability of resources and financial assets, which in turn are variable across the six countries. The fact that consistent reporting of data is lacking and that the reviewed data were captured from different time periods across the six countries, makes intercountry comparisons almost impossible.
It is explained that the lack of research in the Arab world is primarily attributed to limited resources for research infrastructure in cancer institutions, modest governmental and nongovernmental funding, and suboptimal collaboration between various stakeholders[64]. Consequently, country- and regional-level strategies should be put in place to cope with the anticipated increase in BC cases. One aspect these strategies should focus on is the strengthening of health information systems, which will allow: 1) a better assessment of BC burden in the region; 2) an improved understanding of patients and healthcare system demands in light of the anticipated increase in incidence; and 3) a guided evaluation of adopted strategies in BC control and management based on specific indicators and metrics 4) and accordingly, agile and evidence-based decision-making so that decisions are tailored to the needs of patients in the region and that cancer management is optimized. The above is achieved through the proper allocation of budget and resources by the government towards the leveraging of national cancer registries so that not only do they actively collect accurate and reliable data around BC characteristics, management, and outcomes but that these data are made publicly available in a periodic manner for review and utilization by various stakeholders. In addition, efforts should be directed towards supporting research infrastructure to encourage investigator-led research around various topics in BC, with a focus on regional needs and priorities. Finally, it is imperative that industry and academia work closely together following a common agenda of research priorities in order to 1) ensure proper and sustainable funding for research activities and 2) avoid any unnecessary replication of research work and wasted efforts on topics of lesser importance.
Table 1. Breast cancer epidemiology and clinicopathology data from the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia based on the GLOBOCAN database and reports from the countries’ respective national cancer registries.
Table 1. Breast cancer epidemiology and clinicopathology data from the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia based on the GLOBOCAN database and reports from the countries’ respective national cancer registries.
The UAE Qatar Kuwait Bahrain Oman Saudi Arabia
GLOBOCAN 2020[3]
Number of new cases 1030 218 791 244 558 3954
Percent of all cancers 21.4% 14.7% 20.6% 20.1% 15% 14.2%
Percent of all female cancers 38.8% 37.5% 39.5% 37.9% 37.7% 29%
Number of BC deaths 222 57 224 66 195 1095
Percent of all cancer deaths 11.7% 8.1% 13% 11.1% 9.6% 8.4%
5-year prevalence 3746
(122.66 per 100,000)		 776
(108.39 per 100,000)		 2805
(169.37 per 100,000)		 868
(144.40 per 100,000)		 1849
(106.49 per 100,000)		 13653
(92.99 per 100,000)
ASR incidence 58.5 per 100,000 42.7 per 100,000 50.3 per 100,000 44.2 per 100,000 38.5 per 100,000 28.8 per 100,000
ASR mortality 16.6 per 100,000 13.2 per 100,000 17.0 per 100,000 13.6 per 100,000 14.5 per 100,000 8.9 per 100,000
National Cancer Registry
Year 2019[4] 2018[5] 2017[65] 2018[6] (limited to Bahrainis) 2019[7] 2015[66]
Number of new cases 883 invasive, 95 in situ 367
87 (Qatari)
280 (Non-Qatari)
 608 211 350 invasive, 12 in situ
362 (Omanis)
55 (non-Omanis)
 2016 (Saudi)
718 (non-Saudi)
Percent of all cancers 20.2% 17.7% 21.8% 25% 16.7% (Omanis)
28% (non-Omanis)		 16.7% (Saudi)
20.5% (non-Saudi)
Percent of all female cancers 36.1% 38.4% 40.7% 29.19% (Omanis)
68.75% (non-Omanis)		 30.1% (Saudi)
41.4% (non-Saudi)
ASR incidence among females 87.07 per 100,000 61.0 per 100,000 (Kuwaiti)
41.3 per 100,000 (non-Kuwaiti)		 66.0 per 100,000 35.4 per 100,000 (Omanis) 24.3 per 100,000 (Saudi)
29.8 per 100,000 (Non-Saudi)
ASR (all) 78.4 per 100,000 187.8 per 100,000
Crude incidence rate 50.28 per 100,000 61.5 per 100,000 25.6 per 100,000 (Omanis) 20.5 per 100,000 (Saudi)
19.9 per 100,000 (non-Saudi)
Deaths 6 (Qatari)
68 43
Percent of all cancer deaths 11.6% 22.92% (Qatari)
 16.0% 8.9%
Percent of all female cancer deaths 3.54%
Median age/ Mean age Kuwaitis: 55.9
Non-Kuwaitis: 49.9		 Saudi: 50
Peak of incidence age 45-49 (n=68 cases were diagnosed in this age group) 50-54 (n= 36 cases were diagnosed in this age group) Saudi:
45-49 (n=356 cases were diagnosed in this age group)
Non-Saudi:
40-44 (n=124 cases were diagnosed in this age group)
Histology Infiltrating duct carcinoma: 80.45%, n=288 Infiltrating ductal carcinoma: 88.0% Infiltrating duct carcinoma: 90.3% Saudi:
Infiltrating duct carcinoma: 79.2%
Staging Stage I: 13%
Stage II: 46%
Stage III: 33%
Stage IV: 8% 		Kuwaiti:
Stage I: 17%
Stage II: 29%
Stage III: 20%
Stage IV: 12%
Unknown: 21%
Tis: 1%
Non-Kuwaiti:
Stage I: 10%
Stage II: 27%
Stage III: 28%
Stage IV: 16%
Unknown: 16%
Tis: 3% 		Omani:
Stage 0 (in situ): 4%
Stage I: 27%
Stage II: 34%
Stage III: 17%
Stage IV: 15%
Unknown: 3%
Non-Omani:
Stage 0 (in situ): 2%
Stage I: 29%
Stage II: 32%
Stage III: 3%
Stage IV: 18%
Unknown: 16%
 Saudi:
Distant: 15.0%
Localized: 38.3%
Regional: 38.6%
Unknown: 8.2%
Treatment type Top 3 treatment modalities:
1. Chemotherapy / Surgery: 23.20%
2. Surgery: 19.12%
3. Chemotherapy / Radiation Therapy / Surgery: 15.67%
 Kuwaiti:
Surgery: 82.3%
Chemotherapy: 60.8%
Radiotherapy: 65.8%
Hormonal: 74.0%
Non-Kuwaiti:
Surgery: 77.6%
Chemotherapy: 70.5%
Radiotherapy: 65.9%
Hormonal: 67.5%
Survival 1-year survival: 97.4%
3-year survival: 92.5%
5-year survival: 90.5%
ASR, age-standardized rate; BC, breast cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.O.A; methodology, H.O.A; resources, H.O.A; data curation, H.O.A and F.I. ; writing—original draft preparation, H.O.A., F.I.; writing—review and editing, H.O.A, N.A., A.A., I.A.G., M.A., T.A.E, R.A, B.L., P.D., M.A., N.D., U.U.H, T.L.A.J., S.O., A.A.N., A.A.A., S.H.T., F.A., S.E., N.K., N.A., Y.S., M.J., F. P., F.I., H.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Burjeel Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE gave a grant to the authors to cover the cost of article processing charges.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cheema, S.; Maisonneuve, P.; Lowenfels, A.B.; Abraham, A.; Doraiswamy, S.; Mamtani, R. Influence of Age on 2040 Cancer Burden in the Older Population of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries: Public Health Implications. Cancer Control. 2021, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. 3. World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2020: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2020, /: , 2021. https, 8 November 2021.
  4. United Arab Emirates Ministry of Health and Prevention. Cancer Incidence in United Arab Emirates. Annual Report of the UAE National Cancer Registry; 2017 and 2019. www.mohap.gov.
  5. Qatar National Cancer Registry Ministry of Public Health. Qatar Cancer Incidence Report, 2018.; 2018. www.nhsq.
  6. Kingdom of Bahrain Ministry of Health. Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the Kingdom of Bahrain.; 2018.
  7. Ministry of Health Sultanate of Oman. Cancer Incidence in Oman 2019.
  8. Albeshan, S.M.; Mackey, M.G.; Hossain, S.Z.; Alfuraih, A.A.; Brennan, P.C. Breast Cancer Epidemiology in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: A Regional and International Comparison. Clin. Breast Cancer 2018, 18, e381–e392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Al-Othman, S.; Haoudi, A.; Alhomoud, S.; Alkhenizan, A.; Khoja, T.; Al-Zahrani, A. Tackling cancer control in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, e246–e257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zahedi, R.; Vardanjani, H.M.; Baneshi, M.R.; Haghdoost, A.A.; Afshar, R.M.; Sarabi, R.E.; Tavakoli, F.; Zolala, F. Incidence trend of breast Cancer in women of eastern Mediterranean region countries from 1998 to 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Women's Heal. 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Radwan, H.; Hasan, H.; Ballout, R.A.; Rizk, R. The epidemiology of cancer in the United Arab Emirates: A systematic review. Medicine 2018, 97, e13618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hashim, M.J.; Al-Shamsi, F.A.; Al-Marzooqi, N.A.; Al-Qasemi, S.S.; Mokdad, A.H.; Khan, G. Burden of Breast Cancer in the Arab World: Findings from Global Burden of Disease, 2016. J. Epidemiology Glob. Heal. 2018, 8, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bener, A.; Çatan, F.; El Ayoubi, H.R.; Acar, A.; Ibrahim, W.H. Assessing Breast Cancer Risk Estimates Based on the Gail Model and Its Predictors in Qatari Women. J. Prim. Care Community Heal. 2017, 8, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tanner, L.T.A.; Cheung, K.L. Correlation between breast cancer and lifestyle within the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A systematic review. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 12, 217–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bendardaf, R.; Sharif-Askari, F.S.; Sharif-Askari, N.S.; Guraya, S.Y.; A AlMadhi, S.; Abusnana, S. Incidence and Clinicopathological Features of Breast Cancer in the Northern Emirates: Experience from Sharjah Breast Care Center. Int. J. Women's Heal. 2020, 12, 893–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Finkelstein, E.A.; Malkin, J.D.; Baid, D.; Alqunaibet, A.; Mahdi, K.; Al-Thani, M.B.H.; Bin Belaila, B.A.; Al Nawakhtha, E.; Alqahtani, S.; El-Saharty, S.; et al. The impact of seven major noncommunicable diseases on direct medical costs, absenteeism, and presenteeism in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. J. Med Econ. 2021, 24, 828–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mehdi, I.; Monem, E.A.; Al Bahrani, B.J.; Al Kharusi, S.; Nada, A.M.; Al Lawati, J.; Al Lawati, N. Age at diagnosis of female breast cancer in Oman: Issues and implications. South Asian J. Cancer 2014, 3, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Elobaid, Y.; Aamir, M.; Grivna, M.; Suliman, A.; Attoub, S.; Mousa, H.; Ahmed, L.A.; Oulhaj, A. Breast cancer survival and its prognostic factors in the United Arab Emirates: A retrospective study. PLOS ONE 2021, 16, e0251118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hamadeh, R.R.; Abulfatih, N.M.; A Fekri, M.; E Al-Mehza, H. Epidemiology of Breast Cancer among Bahraini Women: Data from the Bahrain Cancer Registry. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med J. [SQUMJ] 2014, 14, e176–82. [Google Scholar]
  20. AlZaman, A.S.; Mughal, S.A.; AlZaman, Y.S.; AlZaman, E.S. Correlation between hormone receptor status and age, and its prognostic implications in breast cancer patients in Bahrain. Saudi Med J. 2016, 37, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chouchane, L.; Boussen, H.; Sastry, K.S.R. Breast cancer in Arab populations: molecular characteristics and disease management implications. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, e417–e424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alawadhi, E.; Al-Awadi, A.; Elbasmi, A.; Coleman, M.P.; Allemani, C. Cancer Survival by Stage at Diagnosis in Kuwait: A Population-Based Study. J. Oncol. 2019, 2019, 8463195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fayaz, S.; A Demian, G.; El-Sherify, M.; Eissa, H.; Aziz, M.; Abuzallouf, S. Triple Negative Breast Cancer: 10-Year Survival Update of The Applied Treatment Strategy in Kuwait. Gulf J. Oncol. 2019, 1, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al-Shamsi, H.O.; Abu-Gheida, I.; Abdulsamad, A.S.; AlAwadhi, A.; Alrawi, S.; Musallam, K.M.; Arun, B.; Ibrahim, N.K. Molecular Spectra and Frequency Patterns of Somatic Mutations in Arab Women with Breast Cancer. Oncol. 2021, 26, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zahid, K.F.; Kumar, S.; Al-Bimani, K.; Ahmed, T.; Al-Ajmi, A.; Burney, I.A.; Al-Moundhri, M. Outcome of Omani Women with Breast Cancer-associated Brain Metastases Experience from a University Hospital. Oman Med J. 2019, 34, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Alzaman, A.; Ali, E.; Mohamad, B.; Islam, M.; Alzaman, E.; Alzaman, Y. The Association Between Clinicopathological Features and Molecular Markers in Bahraini Women With Breast Cancer. Gulf J Oncolog. 2020, 1, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  27. Azim HA, Kandil A, el Zawahry H, et al. Triple negative breast cancer prospective registry in middle East and Africa (TRIPOLI) study:interim analysis of the patients’ characteristics. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium. American Association for Cancer Research (AACR); 2020:Abstract PS7-65. [CrossRef]
  28. Al Bashir, M.; Al Ali, N.; Shaban, S.; Hassouneh, G.; Al Ashari, M.; Jaloudi, M. Young Women in the UAE Have Higher Incidence of HER2 Positive Breast Cancer. Breast J. 2012, 18, 637–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fayaz, M.S.; El-Sherify, M.S.; El-Basmy, A.; Zlouf, S.A.; Nazmy, N.; George, T.; Samir, S.; Attia, G.; Eissa, H. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of triple negative breast cancer in Kuwait: A comparative/perspective analysis. Rep. Pr. Oncol. Radiother. 2014, 19, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Al-Awadi, S.; Thuruthel, S.; Yamini, K.; Muraligopal, P.; Maarouf, I.; Atta, A. Changes in biologic features between primary and recurrent or relapsed breast cancers. Gulf J. Oncol. 2014, 1. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mehdi, I.; A Monem, A.; Al Bahrani, B.; A Ramadhan, F. Breast cancer molecular subtypes in oman: correlation with age, histology, and stage distribution - analysis of 542 cases. Gulf J. Oncol. 2014, 1, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gupta, I.; Jabeen, A.; Al-Sarraf, R.; Farghaly, H.; Vranic, S.; Sultan, A.A.; Al Moustafa, A.-E.; Al-Thawadi, H. The co-presence of high-risk human papillomaviruses and Epstein-Barr virus is linked with tumor grade and stage in Qatari women with breast cancer. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 982–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bujassoum, S.M.; Bugrein, H.; Al-Sulaiman, R.J.; Ghazouani, H. QATAR’S EXPERIENCE WITH HEREDITARY BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER AND HIGH RISK CLINIC: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY 2013-2016. Int. J. Res. -GRANTHAALAYAH 2017, 5, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Al Hannan, F.; Keogh, M.B.; Taha, S.; Al Buainain, L. Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic variants in a cohort of Bahraini breast cancer patients using next-generation sequencing. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 2019, 7, e00771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Altinoz, A.; Al Ameri, M.; Qureshi, W.; Boush, N.; Nair, S.C.; Abdel-Aziz, A. Clinicopathological characteristics of gene-positive breast cancer in the United Arab Emirates. Breast 2020, 53, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gupta, I.; Ouhtit, A.; Al-Ajmi, A.; A Rizvi, S.G.; Al-Riyami, H.; Al-Riyami, M.; Tamimi, Y. BRIP1 overexpression is correlated with clinical features and survival outcome of luminal breast cancer subtypes. Endocr. Connect. 2018, 7, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Al-Moundhri, M.S.; Al-Ansari, A.; Al-Mawali, K.; Al Bahrani, B. BRCA1 gene Molecular Alterations in Omani Breast Cancer Patients. Gulf J. Oncol. 2013, 1, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gupta, I.; Burney, I.; Al-Moundhri, M.S.; Tamimi, Y. Molecular genetics complexity impeding research progress in breast and ovarian cancers. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 7, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vishnubalaji, R.; Nair, V.S.; Ouararhni, K.; Elkord, E.; Alajez, N.M. Integrated Transcriptome and Pathway Analyses Revealed Multiple Activated Pathways in Breast Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Al-Ajmi, K.; Ganguly, S.S.; Al-Ajmi, A.; Al Mandhari, Z.; Al-Moundhri, M.S. Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 Gene Polymorphism and Breast Cancer Risk among Arab Omani Women: A Case-Control Study. Breast Cancer: Basic Clin. Res. 2012, 6, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Alawadi, S.; Ghabreau, L.; Alsaleh, M.; Abdulaziz, Z.; Rafeek, M.; Akil, N.; Alkhalaf, M. P53 gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in Arab women. Med Oncol. 2011, 28, 709–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wan, S.; Kumar, D.; Ilyin, V.; Al Homsi, U.; Sher, G.; Knuth, A.; Coveney, P.V. The effect of protein mutations on drug binding suggests ensuing personalised drug selection. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jaafar, H.; Al Bashir, M.; Taher, A.; Qawasmeh, K.; Jaloudi, M. Impact of Oncotype DX testing on adjuvant treatment decisions in patients with early breast cancer: A single-center study in the United Arab Emirates. Asia-Pacific J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 10, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fayaz, S.; Eissa, H.E.-S.; Demian, G.A. Implications of the 21-gene recurrence score assay (Oncotype DX) on adjuvant treatment decisions in ER-positive early-stage breast cancer patients: experience of Kuwait Cancer Control Center. J. Egypt. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2020, 32, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lakhtakia, R.; Aljarrah, A.; Furrukh, M.; Ganguly, S.S. Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) in Metastatic Breast Cancer in Omani Women. Cancer Microenviron. 2017, 10, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sami, M.M.; Hachim, M.Y.; Hachim, I.Y.; Elbarkouky, A.H.; López-Ozuna, V.M. Nucleostemin expression in breast cancer is a marker of more aggressive phenotype and unfavorable patients’ outcome: A STROBE-compliant article. Medicine 2019, 98, e14744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Al Abri, S.; Al Rawahi, A.; Rao, L. Elastosis in Breast Cancer as a Surrogate Marker for Estrogen Receptor Positivity. Oman Med J. 2020, 36, e247–e247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sharif-Askari, F.S.; Al-Khayyal, N.; Talaat, I.; et al. Immunohistochemical assessment of TNFAIP3/A20 expression correlates with early tumorigenesis in breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2021, 41, 739–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alkhayyal, N.; Talaat, I.; Vinodnadat, A.; Maghazachi, A.; Abusnana, S.; Syrjänen, K.; Bendardaf, R. Correlation of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 Receptor Expression With Different Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer in the UAE. Anticancer. Res. 2020, 40, 1555–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Salam, S.; Sudhadevi, M.; Awwad, A.; Al Bashir, M. Trefoil factors peptide-3 is associated with residual invasive breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 2019, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Francis, I.; AlAbdali, N.; Kapila, K.; John, B.; Al-Temaimi, R.A. Vitamin D pathway related polymorphisms and vitamin D receptor expression in breast cancer. Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 2021, 91, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Al-Bahlani, S.M.; Lakhtakia, R.; Al-Jaaidi, S.S.; Al-Sinawi, S.S.; Abd-Elmoety, S.G.; Al-Khabori, M.; Osman, A.H.A.; Al-Baimani, K.; Shalaby, A.A. Correlation of expression of Akt1 and E2F1 and their phosphorylated forms in breast cancer patients with clinicopathological parameters. Histochem. J. 2021, 52, 621–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Toor, S.M.; Khaja, A.S.S.; El Salhat, H.; Faour, I.; Kanbar, J.; Quadri, A.A.; Albashir, M.; Elkord, E. Myeloid cells in circulation and tumor microenvironment of breast cancer patients. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2017, 66, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Al Ayyan, M.; Ali, O.B.; Al Sharri, S.; Kassis, A.; Hussain, S.; Al-Bashir, M. Negative axillary ultrasonography with biopsy may predict non-involvement of the non-sentinel lymph nodes in operable breast cancer patients. Asia-Pacific J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 10, e86–e89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fayaz, S.; Demian, G.A.; El-Sherify, M.; et al. Triple Negative Breast Cancer: 10-Year Survival Update of The Applied Treatment Strategy in Kuwait. Gulf J Oncolog. Published online 2019, 53–59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30957764. /.
  56. Al-Ramadhan, M. Eradicating Breast Cancer: Longevity Impact on Kuwaiti Women. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2017, 18, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Krishnan, Y.; Alawadhi, S.A.; Sreedharan, P.; Gopal, M.; Thuruthela, S. Pathological responses and long-term outcome analysis after neoadjuvant chemotheraphy in breast cancer patients from Kuwait over a period of 15 years. Ann. Saudi Med. 2013, 33, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Krishnan, Y.; Al Awadi, S.; Sreedharan, P.; Nair, S.S.; Thuruthel, S. Analysis of neoadjuvant therapies in breast cancer with respect to pathological complete response, disease-free survival and overall survival: 15 years follow-up data from Kuwait. Asia-Pacific J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 12, e30–e37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hassanipour, S.; Maghsoudi, A.; Rezaeian, S.; Arab-Zozani, M.; Mokhtari, A.M.; Abdzadeh, E.; Riahi, S.; Mohseni, S.; Salehiniya, H. Survival Rate of Breast Cancer in Eastern Mediterranean Region Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann. Glob. Heal. 2019, 85, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Meena, L.P.; Kumar, S.; Sinha, S.; Bharti, A.; Gupta, V.; Shukla, J. A study to determine the prevalence, clinical profile and incidence of formation of inhibitors in patients of hemophilia in north eastern part of India. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2019, 8, 2463–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Al-Shamsi, H.; Darr, H.; Abu-Gheida, I.; Ansari, J.; McManus, M.C.; Jaafar, H.; Tirmazy, S.H.; ElKhoury, M.; Azribi, F.; Jelovac, D.; et al. The State of Cancer Care in the United Arab Emirates in 2020: Challenges and Recommendations, A report by the United Arab Emirates Oncology Task Force. Gulf J Oncolog. 2020, 1, 71–87. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dawood, S.; Konstantinova, M.; Perazzo, F.; Kim, S.-B.; Villarreal-Garza, C.; Franco, S.X.; Simon, S.D.; El-Nahas, T. Optimizing the management of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of PARP inhibitors—proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dawood, S.; Konstantionva, M.; Dent, R.; Perazzo, F.; Kim, S.-B.; Villarreal-Garza, C.; Franco, S.; Dai, M.-S.; Simon, S. Optimizing treatment selection, and sequencing decisions for Management of HR-Positive, HER2-Negative advanced breast cancer – Proceedings from breast cancer expert group meeting. BMC Proc. 2021, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sweileh, W.M.; Zyoud, S. 'E.H.; Al-Jabi, S.W.; Sawalha, A.F. Contribution of Arab countries to breast cancer research: comparison with non-Arab Middle Eastern countries. BMC Women's Health 2015, 15, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kuwait Cancer Registry. Kuwait Cancer Control Center (JCCC). Annual report 2017.
  66. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Health Council. National Health Information Center. Saudi Cancer Registry. Cancer Incidence Report Saudi Arabia. 2015.
  67. Abu Awwad, D.; Hossain, S.Z.; Mackey, M.; Brennan, P.; Adam, S. Women’s Breast Cancer Knowledge and Health Communication in the United Arab Emirates. Healthcare 2020, 8, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chaabna, K.; Ladumor, H.; Cheema, S. Ecological study of breast cancer incidence among nationals and nonnationals in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. East. Mediterr. Heal. J. 2023, 29, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Elobaid, Y.; Aamir, M.; Grivna, M.; Suliman, A.; Attoub, S.; Mousa, H.; Ahmed, L.A.; Oulhaj, A. Breast cancer survival and its prognostic factors in the United Arab Emirates: A retrospective study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Allemani, C.; Weir, H.K.; Carreira, H.; et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: Analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015, 385, 977–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Al-Shamsi, H.O.; Abdelwahed, N.; Al-Awadhi, A.; Albashir, M.; Abyad, A.M.; Rafii, S.; Afrit, M.; Al Lababidi, B.; Abu-Gheida, I.; Sonawane, Y.P.; et al. Breast Cancer in the United Arab Emirates. JCO Glob. Oncol. 2023, 9, e2200247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Chirlaque, M.D.; the REDECAN Working Group; Salmerón, D.; Galceran, J.; Ameijide, A.; Mateos, A.; Torrella, A.; Jiménez, R.; Larrañaga, N.; Marcos-Gragera, R.; et al. Cancer survival in adult patients in Spain. Results from nine population-based cancer registries. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2017, 20, 201–211. [CrossRef]
  73. Allemani, C.; et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: Analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015, 385, 977–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. El Bcheraoui, C.; Basulaiman, M.; Wilson, S.; Daoud, F.; Tuffaha, M.; AlMazroa, M.A.; Memish, Z.A.; Al Saeedi, M.; Mokdad, A.H. Breast Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: Free but Almost No Takers. PLOS ONE 2015, 10, e0119051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Al Mulhim, F.; Syed, A.; Bagatadah, W.; Al Muhanna, A. Breast cancer screening programme: experience from Eastern province, Saudi Arabia. East. Mediterr. Heal. J. 2015, 21, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Abulkhair, O.A.; Al Tahan, F.M.; Young, S.E.; Musaad, S.M.; Jazieh, A.-R.M. The first national public breast cancer screening program in Saudi Arabia. Ann. Saudi Med. 2010, 30, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Akhtar, S.; Nadrah, H.; Al Habdan, M.; El Gabbani, S.; El Farouk, G.; Abdelgadir, M.; Al Saigul, A. First organized screening mammography programme in Saudi Arabia: preliminary analysis of pilot round. East. Mediterr. Heal. J. 2010, 16, 1025–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gosadi, I.M. National screening programs in Saudi Arabia: Overview, outcomes, and effectiveness. J. Infect. Public Heal. 2019, 12, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aseafan, M.; Devol, E.; AlAhwal, M.; Souissi, R.; Sindi, R.; AlEid, H.; Bazarbashi, S. Population-based survival for cancer patients in Saudi Arabia for the years 2005–2009. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated