SummaryBackgroundMenarche and menopause mark the onset and cessation, respectively, of ovarian activity associated with reproduction, and affect breast cancer risk. Our aim was to assess the strengths of their effects and determine whether they depend on characteristics of the tumours or the affected women.MethodsIndividual data from 117 epidemiological studies, including 118 964 women with invasive breast cancer and 306 091 without the disease, none of whom had used menopausal hormone therapy, were included in the analyses. We calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) associated with menarche and menopause for breast cancer overall, and by tumour histology and by oestrogen receptor expression.FindingsBreast cancer risk increased by a factor of 1·050 (95% CI 1·044–1·057; p<0·0001) for every year younger at menarche, and independently by a smaller amount (1·029, 1·025–1·032; p<0·0001), for every year older at menopause. Premenopausal women had a greater risk of breast cancer than postmenopausal women of an identical age (RR at age 45–54 years 1·43, 1·33–1·52, p<0·001). All three of these associations were attenuated by increasing adiposity among postmenopausal women, but did not vary materially by women's year of birth, ethnic origin, childbearing history, smoking, alcohol consumption, or hormonal contraceptive use. All three associations were stronger for lobular than for ductal tumours (p<0·006 for each comparison). The effect of menopause in women of an identical age and trends by age at menopause were stronger for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease (p<0·01 for both comparisons).InterpretationThe effects of menarche and menopause on breast cancer risk might not be acting merely by lengthening women's total number of reproductive years. Endogenous ovarian hormones are more relevant for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease and for lobular than for ductal tumours.FundingCancer Research UK.

We conducted a combined analysis of the original data to evaluate the consistency of 12 case-control studies of diet and breast cancer. Our analysis shows a consistent, statistically significant, positive association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake in postmenopausal women (relative risk for highest vs. lowest quintile, 1.46; P less than .0001). A consistent protective effect for a number of markers of fruit and vegetable intake was demonstrated; vitamin C intake had the most consistent and statistically significant inverse association with breast cancer risk (relative risk for highest vs. lowest quintile, 0.69; P less than .0001). If these dietary associations represent causality, the attributable risk (i.e., the percentage of breast cancers that might be prevented by dietary modification) in the North American population is estimated to be 24% for postmenopausal women and 16% for premenopausal women.

The risk of cancer associated with a broad range of organ doses was estimated in an international study of women with cervical cancer. Among 150,000 patients reported to one of 19 population-based cancer registries or treated in any of 20 oncology clinics, 4188 women with second cancers and 6880 matched controls were selected for detailed study. Radiation doses for selected organs were reconstructed for each patient on the basis of her original radiotherapy records. Very high doses, on the order of several hundred gray, were found to increase the risk of cancers of the bladder [relative risk (RR) = 4.0], rectum (RR = 1.8), vagina (RR = 2.7), and possibly bone (RR = 1.3), uterine corpus (RR = 1.3), cecum (RR = 1.5), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (RR = 2.5). For all female genital cancers taken together, a sharp dose-response gradient was observed, reaching fivefold for doses more than 150 Gy. Several gray increased the risk of stomach cancer (RR = 2.1) and leukemia (RR = 2.0). Although cancer of the pancreas was elevated, there was no evidence of a dose-dependent risk. Cancer of the kidney was significantly increased among 15-year survivors. A nonsignificant twofold risk of radiogenic thyroid cancer was observed following an average dose of only 0.11 Gy. Breast cancer was not increased overall, despite an average dose of 0.31 Gy and 953 cases available for evaluation (RR = 0.9); there was, however, a weak suggestion of a dose response among women whose ovaries had been surgically removed. Doses greater than 6 Gy to the ovaries reduced breast cancer risk by 44%. A significant deficit of ovarian cancer was observed within 5 years of radiotherapy; in contrast, a dose response was suggested among 10-year survivors. Radiation was not found to increase the overall risk of cancers of the small intestine, colon, ovary, vulva, connective tissue, breast, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. For most cancers associated with radiation, risks were highest among long-term survivors and appeared concentrated among women irradiated at relatively younger ages.

Quality of oral screening examinations is dependent upon the experience of the clinician and can vary widely. Deciding when a patient needs to be referred is a critical and difficult decision for general practice clinicians. A device to aid in this decision would be beneficial. Objectives To examine the utility of direct fluorescence visualization (FV) by dental practitioners as an aid in decision-making during screening for cancer and other oral lesions. Methods Dentists were trained to use a stepwise protocol for evaluation of the oral mucosa: medical history, head, neck and oral exam and fluorescent visualization exam. They were asked to use clinical features to categorize lesions as low (LR), intermediate (IR) or high (HR) risk and then to determine FV status of these lesions. Clinicians made the decision of which lesions to reassess in 3 weeks and based on this reassessment, to refer forward. Results Of 2404 patients screened over 11 months, 357 initially had lesions with 325 (15%) identified as LR, 16 (4.5%) IR and 16 (4.5%) HR. Lesions assessed initially as IR and HR had a 2.7 fold increased risk of FV loss persisting to the reassessment appointment versus the LR lesions. The most predictive model for lesion persistence included both FV status and lesion risk assessment. Conclusion A protocol for screening (assess risk, reassess and refer) is recommended for the screening of abnormal intraoral lesions. Integrating FV into a process of assessing and reassessing lesions significantly improved this model.

In a population-based case-control study of prostate cancer conducted in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver between 1989 and 1993, a total of 640 newly incident cases and 639 aged-matched population controls were interviewed as to their family history of prostate cancer as well as nutritional and other lifestyle and environmental factors. In total, 94 cases (15%) reported at least one blood relative with a family history, as compared with 32 (5%) of controls, giving a relative risk of 3.32 (95% confidence interval 2.18-5.05). The association was very consistent across all 3 centers, and was similar for each specific type of relative considered (fathers or brothers). Thus, this study provides further evidence of familial aggregation of prostate cancer, and suggests the possibility that part or all of such clustering could be related to inherited genetic patterns; if so, the availability of screening procedures for the disease offers the possibility of useful early intervention in individuals with such inherited susceptibility.

Oral cancer is a substantial, often unrecognized issue globally, with close to 300,000 new cases reported annually. It is a management conundrum: a cancer site that is easily examined; yet more than 40% of oral cancers are diagnosed at a late stage when prognosis is poor and treatment can be devastating. Opportunistic screening within the dental office could lead to earlier diagnosis and intervention with improved survival. Objectives To describe how clinicians make decisions about referral based on the risk classification of the lesion. Methods 18 dentists from 15 dental offices participated in a 1-day workshop on oral cancer screening. Participants then screened patients (medical history, conventional oral exam, fluorescent visualization exam) in-office for 11 months, triaging patients by apparent clinical risk: low-risk (common benign conditions, geographic tongue, candidiasis, trauma), intermediate-risk (lichenoid lesions) and high-risk (white or red lesions or ulcers without apparent cause). Clinicians made the decision on which lesions to reassess in 3 weeks based on risk assessment and clinical judgment. Lesions of concern were seen by a community facilitator or referred to an oral medicine specialist. Results 2542 patients were screened and 389 lesions were identified (15% of patients). 350 were determined to be low-risk (90%), 19 IR (5%) and 20 HR (5%). One hundred and sixty-six (43%) patients were recalled for 3-week reassessment: 90% of HR lesions, 63% of IR lesions (63%) and 39% of low-risk lesions. Compliance to recall was high (92% of cases). Reassessment eliminated the referral of 99/166 (60%) of lesions that had resolved. 6 lesions were biopsied with 3 low-grade dysplasias identified. Conclusions Three key decision points were tested: risk assessment, need for reassessment and need for referral. A 3-week reassessment appointment was invaluable to prevent the unnecessary referral due to confounders. There is a need for a well-defined triage pathway to facilitate oral cancer screening and a methodical and consistent approach to opportunistic screening in the dental office.

With a diagnosis of cancer, life changes for patients in a profound manner. The window of time known as cancer diagnosis is one of considerable turbulence and distress for patients. Therefore, diagnosis constitutes a time during which communication with healthcare professionals is of particular importance in setting the stage for the way cancer illness will be experienced. Our research explores communications throughout the cancer trajectory from the perspective of patients themselves. We are following a sample of 60 cancer patients, representing a range of tumour sites, from the early diagnostic period through to recovery, chronic, or advanced disease. Using interpretive description analysis techniques, we document patterns and themes related to various components of the cancer journey. In this paper, we focus on themes related to perceived helpful communication during the diagnosis experience as reported by our study participants both at the time of being newly diagnosed patients, and as they reflect on that period 12 months later. These findings illuminate experiential issues of importance to patients in relation to cancer care communication and the manner in which helpful communications during this sensitive time may facilitate the subsequent experience living with and obtaining care for cancer.

No abstract