JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1647-57
Effects of conjugated equine estrogens on breast cancer and mammography screening in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy.
Stefanick ML, Anderson GL, Margolis KL, Hendrix SL, Rodabough RJ, Paskett ED, Lane DS, Hubbell FA, Assaf AR, Sarto GE, Schenken RS, Yasmeen S, Lessin L, Chlebowski RT; WHI Investigators.
Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
CONTEXT: The Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-Aone trial comparing conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) with placebo was stopped early because of an increased stroke incidence and no reduction in risk of coronary heart disease. Preliminary results suggesting possible reduction in breast cancers warranted more detailed analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of CEE on breast cancers and mammographic findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Following breast cancer risk assessment, 10,739 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with prior hysterectomy were randomized to CEE or placebo at 40 US clinical centers from 1993 through 1998. Mammography screenings and clinical breast examinations were performed at baseline and annually. All breast cancers diagnosed through February 29, 2004, are included. INTERVENTION: A dose of 0.625 mg/d of CEE or an identical-appearing placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer incidence, tumor characteristics, and mammogram findings. RESULTS: After a mean (SD) follow-up of 7.1 (1.6) years, the invasive breast cancer hazard ratio (HR) for women assigned to CEE vs placebo was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.04; P = .09) with annualized rates of 0.28% (104 cases in the CEE group) and 0.34% (133 cases in the placebo group). In exploratory analyses, ductal carcinomas (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99) were reduced in the CEE group vs placebo group; however, the test for interaction by tumor type was not significant (P = .054). At 1 year, 9.2% of women in the CEE group had mammograms with abnormalities requiring follow-up vs 5.5% in the placebo group (P<.001), a pattern that continued through the trial to reach a cumulative percentage of 36.2% vs 28.1%, respectively (P<.001); however, this difference was primarily in assessments requiring short interval follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CEE alone for 7.1 years does not increase breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy. However, treatment with CEE increases the frequency of mammography screening requiring short interval follow-up. Initiation of CEE should be based on consideration of the individual woman's potential risks and benefits.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Apr;15(4):602-11
Is the Association between Cigarette Smoking and Breast Cancer Modified by Genotype? A Review of Epidemiologic Studies and Meta-analysis.
Terry PD, Goodman M.
Department of Epidemiology, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.
Epidemiologic studies have examined the association between cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk according to genotype with increasing frequency, commensurate with the growing awareness of the roles genes play in detoxifying or activating chemicals found in cigarette smoke and in preventing or repairing the damage caused by those compounds. To date, approximately 50 epidemiologic studies have examined the association between smoking and breast cancer risk according to variation in genes related to carcinogen metabolism, modulation of oxidative damage, and DNA repair. Some of the findings presented here suggest possible effect modification by genotype. In particular, 14 epidemiologic studies have tended to show positive associations with long-term smoking among NAT2 slow acetylators, especially among postmenopausal women. Summary analyses produced overall meta-relative risk (RR) estimates for smoking of 1.2 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.0-1.5] for rapid acetylators and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) for slow acetylators. After stratification by menopausal status, the meta-RR for postmenopausal slow acetylators was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.7-3.3), whereas similar analyses for the other categories showed no association. In addition, summary analyses produced meta-RRs for smoking of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.8-1.4) when GSTM1 was present and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1-2.1) when the gene was deleted. Overall, however, interpretation of the available literature is complicated by methodologic limitations, including small sample sizes, varying definitions of smoking, and difficulties involving single nucleotide polymorphism selection, which likely have contributed to the inconsistent findings. These methodologic issues should be addressed in future studies to help clarify the association between smoking and breast cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Feb;15(2):334-41.
Association of energy intake and energy balance with postmenopausal breast cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.
Chang SC, Ziegler RG, Dunn B, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, Lacey JV Jr, Huang WY, Schatzkin A, Reding D, Hoover RN, Hartge P, Leitzmann MF.
National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza South, Suite 320, MSC7232, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Energy restriction remains one of the most effective ways known to prevent breast cancer in animal models. However, energy intake has not been consistently associated with risk of breast cancer in humans. In a prospective study, we assessed whether energy intake, body size, and physical activity each independently influence breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women and estimated the joint effect of combinations of these individual factors. As part of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, 38,660 women, ages 55 to 74 years and recruited from 10 centers in the United States during 1993 to 2001, were randomized to the screening arm of the trial. At baseline, the women completed a self-administered questionnaire, including a food frequency questionnaire. During follow-up from 1993 to 2003, 764 incident breast cancer cases were ascertained. Women in the highest quartile of energy intake (> or = 2,084 kcal/d) compared with those in the lowest quartile (<1,316 kcal/d) had a significantly increased risk for breast cancer [multivariate relative risk (RR), 1.25; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.53; P(trend continuous) = 0.03]. Current body mass index (BMI) was also positively and significantly associated with risk (multivariate RR comparing >30 kg/m2 with <22.5 kg/m2, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.06-1.70; P(trend) = 0.01). Women with > or = 4 hours/wk of vigorous recreational physical activity had a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer compared with those who reported no recreational physical activity (multivariate RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99; P(trend) = 0.15). None of these associations with individual energy balance measures was substantially confounded by the other two measures. When we estimated the joint effect of all three variables, women with the most unfavorable energy balance (the highest energy intake, highest BMI, and least physical activity) had twice the risk (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.27-3.45) of women with the most favorable energy balance (the lowest energy intake, lowest BMI, and most physical activity). Although our estimates of absolute energy intake, based on a food frequency questionnaire, are imperfect, these results suggest that energy intake, in addition to BMI and physical activity may be independently associated with breast cancer risk. In addition, these three aspects of energy balance may act jointly in determining breast cancer risk.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Apr 5;98(7):459-71.
Meta-analysis of soy intake and breast cancer risk.
Trock BJ, Hilakivi-Clarke L, Clarke R.
Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. btrock@jhmi.edu
BACKGROUND: High intake of soy foods has been proposed to contribute to the low breast cancer risk in Asian countries. However, results of epidemiologic studies of this association are highly variable, and experimental data suggest that soy constituents can be estrogenic and potentially risk enhancing. Thus, rigorous evaluation of available epidemiologic data is necessary before appropriate recommendations can be made, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer or those who have survived the disease. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 18 epidemiologic studies (12 case-control and six cohort or nested case-control) published from 1978 through 2004 that examined soy exposure and breast cancer risk. Pooled relative risk estimates were based on either the original soy exposure measure defined in each study or on an estimate of daily soy protein intake. RESULTS: Risk estimates, levels and measures of soy exposure, and control for confounding factors varied considerably across studies. In a pooled analysis, among all women, high soy intake was modestly associated with reduced breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 0.99); the association was not statistically significant among women in Asian countries (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.12). Among the 10 studies that stratified by menopausal status the inverse association between soy exposure and breast cancer risk was somewhat stronger in premenopausal women (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.85) than in postmenopausal women (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.98); however, eight studies did not provide menopause-specific results, six of which did not support an association. When exposure was analyzed by soy protein intake in grams per day, a statistically significant association with breast cancer risk was seen only among premenopausal women (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Soy intake may be associated with a small reduction in breast cancer risk. However, this result should be interpreted with caution due to potential exposure misclassification, confounding, and lack of a dose response. Given these caveats and results of some experimental studies that suggest adverse effects from soy constituents, recommendations for high-dose isoflavone supplementation to prevent breast cancer or prevent its recurrence are premature.
Int J Cancer. 2005 Dec 29; [Epub ahead of print]
Anthropometric measures, endogenous sex steroids and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women: A study within the EPIC cohort.
Rinaldi S, Key TJ, Peeters PH, Lahmann PH, Lukanova A, Dossus L, Biessy C, Vineis P, Sacerdote C, et als.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC-WHO), Lyon, France.
In a large case-control study on breast cancer risk and serum hormone concentrations, nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, we examined to what extent the relationship of excess body weight with breast cancer risk may be explained by changes in sex steroids. Height, weight, waist and hip circumferences, and serum measurements of testosterone [T], androstenedione [Delta(4)], dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate [DHEAS], estradiol [E(2)], estrone [E(1)] and sex-hormone binding globulin [SHBG] were available for 613 breast cancer cases, and 1,139 matched controls, who were all menopausal at the time of blood donation. Free T [fT] and free E(2) [fE(2)] were calculated using mass action equations. Breast cancer risk was related to body mass index (BMI) (RR = 1.11 [0.99-1.25], per 5 kg/m(2) increase in BMI), and waist (RR = 1.12 [1.02-1.24], per 10 cm increase) and hip circumferences (RR = 1.14 [1.02-1.27], per 10 cm increase). The increase in breast cancer risk associated with adiposity was substantially reduced after adjustment for any estrogens, especially for fE(2) (from 1.11 [0.99-1.25] to 0.99 [0.87-1.12], from 1.12 [1.02-1.24] to 1.02 [0.92-1.14] and from 1.14 [1.02-1.27] to 1.05 [0.93-1.18] for BMI, waist and hip circumferences, respectively). A modest attenuation in excess risk was observed after adjustment for fT, but the remaining androgens had little effect on the association of body adiposity with breast cancer. Our data indicate that the relationship of adiposity with breast cancer in postmenopausal women could be partially explained by the increases in endogenous estrogens, and by a decrease in levels of SHBG.
