Anthropometric and Somatotype Characteristics of Women with Breast Cancer

• Published in: International journal of morphology 2020-04, Vol.38 (2), p.448-457
• Main Authors: Udicki, Mirjana, Adamovic, Dragan, Srdic-Galic, Biljana, Pavlica, Tatjana, Radovanovic, Zoran
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
• ISSN: 0717-9502; 0717-9502
• DOI: 10.4067/S0717-95022020000200448

Inconsistent data are available on the relation between breast cancer, adiposity, body size and somatotype. The aim of our study was to compare anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype between breast cancer patients and healthy controls. Study group consisted of 106 breast cancer patients while control group consisted of 100 healthy women who underwent 29 anthropometric measurements. Women with breast cancer expressed more male anthropometric features like higher stature (160.75±6.91 vs. 158.17±4.89 cm, p=0.020), shorter trunk (sitting height in premenopausal: 84.94±5.07 vs. 88.50±3.84 cm, p=0.001 and postmenopausal women: 81.96±6.08 vs. 85.19±3.36 cm, p=0.001), narrower hips (29.20±3.78 vs. 32.24±1.78 cm, p=0.000), higher biepicondylar diameter of humerus (premenopausal: 6.64±0.71 vs. 6.31±0.42 cm, p=0.012; postmenopausal: 6.95±0.63 vs. 6.54±0.49 cm, p=0.000), larger upper- and forearm as well as upper thigh circumferences followed by lower biceps and higher thigh skinfold thicknesses. They also had significantly lower endomorphy (premenopausal: 5.84±1.78 vs. 6.55±0.96, p=0.027; postmenopausal: 6.89±1.52 vs. 7.37±0.86, p=0.035) and significantly higher ectomorphy (premenopausal: 2.05±1.30 vs. 1.41±0.99, p=0.018; postmenopausal: 1.06±0.90 vs. 0.68±0.56, p=0.007), as well as higher mesomorphy only in postmenopausal women (6.10±2.04 vs. 5.37±1.34, p=0.022). Most represented somatotype among breast cancer patients was endomorph-mesomorph while the most healthy controls were mesomorphic endomorph. Android body type increases the risk of development of breast cancer. Indicators of skeletal dimensions, muscle volume and peripheral adiposity had better predictive value over markers of central and overall adiposity.