Birthweight, parental age, birth order and breast cancer risk in African-American and white women: a population-based case–control study

Hodgson, M. Elizabeth; Newman, Beth; Millikan, Robert C.

doi:10.1186/bcr931

Cited by 46 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies find evidence of a positive association between birth weight and breast cancer risk, but several have not (Ekbom et al, 1997;Sanderson et al, 1998Sanderson et al, , 2002Titus-Ernstoff et al, 2002;Hodgson et al, 2004). Although not associated overall in our data, risk was elevated, albeit not statistically significantly, with high birth weight in younger women consistent with previous observations (Michels et al, 1996;Sanderson et al, 1996;De Stavola et al, 2000;Innes et al, 2000;Mellemkjaer et al, 2003;McCormack et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Only one investigated the interaction of birth weight and education (Titus-Ernstoff et al, 2002), reporting a stronger association of high birth weight with breast cancer risk in women whose fathers were the most educated. As discussed elsewhere (Hodgson et al, 2004), most studies have been conducted in Caucasians from high-risk populations. Results from studies in a relatively disadvantaged population in the US (Hodgson et al, 2004) and in Chinese women with limited education (Sanderson et al, 2002) suggest an inverse association of birth weight and breast cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As discussed elsewhere (Hodgson et al, 2004), most studies have been conducted in Caucasians from high-risk populations. Results from studies in a relatively disadvantaged population in the US (Hodgson et al, 2004) and in Chinese women with limited education (Sanderson et al, 2002) suggest an inverse association of birth weight and breast cancer. If the association of birth weight with breast cancer differs by social class, this might explain some of the heterogeneity of findings reported in the literature on birth weight and breast cancer risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Birth weight and breast cancer risk

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many, but not all studies of birth weight and subsequent breast cancer risk suggest a positive association, with the most consistent finding being an association in younger or premenopausal women, often with either no or a reduced association among postmenopausal women (Ekbom et al, 1992;Michels et al, 1996;Sanderson et al, 1996;De Stavola et al, 2000;Innes et al, 2000;Andersson et al, 2001;Hilakivi-Clarke et al, 2001;Titus-Ernstoff et al, 2002;Vatten et al, 2002Vatten et al, , 2005Ahlgren et al, 2003;Kaijser et al, 2003;McCormack et al, 2003;Mellemkjaer et al, 2003;dos Santos Silva et al, 2004;Lahmann et al, 2004).We evaluated the association of birth weight and breast cancer risk in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Combined Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Cohorts Follow-up Study. The strengths of this resource are the availability of weight from birth records, adult breast cancer risk factor data from three phases of questionnaire follow-up, and a subset of the population receiving very high pharmacologic doses of oestrogen, which could inform some of the speculation about possible hormonal mechanisms. MATERIALS AND METHODSApprovals for the study were obtained from the committees for the review of research involving human subjects at the field centres and the NCI.The NCI DES Combined Cohort Study started in 1992 with the aggregation of prior US cohorts of individuals with medical record documentation of DES exposure and a comparable cohort of unexposed women (Bibbo et al, 1977;Labarthe et al, 1978;Greenberg et al, 1984). Questionnaires were mailed to participants in 1994, 1997, and 2001, and the National Death Index (NDI)-Plus was used to identify women whose whereabouts were unknown. Of the 5847 eligible subjects with birth weight data who were free of breast cancer at the start of follow-up, 97 developed breast cancer and 1245 were lost before the end of follow-up in 2001; the remaining 4505 were followed through the 2001 data collection phase. Incident cases of breast cancer were identified through questionnaire self-reports and searches of the NDI-Plus. Pathology reports or death certificates were obtained for 91% of the reported breast cancer cases eligible for analysis, confirming invasive disease in 88% and in situ disease in an additional 11%. Only primary invasive cases were analysed.Data on birth weight and gestational age were available from obstetrical charts for 80% of the women. For the remaining 20%, these data were ascertained from the mothers at the time of their daughter's original enrollment in the study (the average age of the daughters ¼ 24 years). Information on covariates was obtained from the study questionnaires, obstetrical records or interviews, or from earlier questionnaires from the original cohort studies.Follow-up began on 1 January 1978 (or the date of first enrollment if it occurred later). Person-years accrued until the earliest of the following dates: first breast cancer diagnosis, last known follow-up, death, or return of the 2001 questionnaire. The median number of follow-up ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Birth weight and breast cancer risk

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, birth order has been associated with birth weight, a risk factor for breast cancer (Juntunen et al, 1997;Potischman and Troisi, 1999;Barba et al, 2006). In utero estradiol levels decrease with birth order, with potential implications for risks of breast, testicular and possibly other cancer sites (Bernstein et al, 1986;Panagiotopoulou et al, 1990;Trichopoulos, 1990;Hsieh et al, 1991;Prener et al, 1992;Westergaard et al, 1998;Potischman and Troisi, 1999;Petridou et al, 2000;Weir et al, 2000;Hodgson et al, 2004;Richiardi et al, 2004;Sorensen et al, 2005). Family crowding necessarily involves intimate contacts between its members, with potential effects on infectious diseases (Kinlen et al, 1990;Altieri et al, 2006a, b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Number of siblings and the risk of solid tumours: a nation-wide study

Altieri

Hemminki

2007

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analysed the effects of number of siblings on the risk of solid tumours using the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, including population-based information on over 11 million individuals and more than 178 000 cancer patients diagnosed between 1958 and 2004. Incidence rate ratios (RRs), estimated by Poisson regression models, were adjusted for age, sex, birth cohort, area of residence and socioeconomic status. Having eight or more siblings vs none increased the risk of stomach cancer (RR ¼ 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.44 -2.34). Anal cancer diagnosed before age 40 showed the strongest association with the total siblings (RR ¼ 3.27, 95% CI, 2.04 -5.26 for five or more siblings vs none). Endometrial (RR ¼ 0.76, 95% CI, 0.70 -0.82), testicular (RR ¼ 0.71, 95% CI, 0.62 -0.82), skin cancer (RR ¼ 0.82, 95% CI, 0.69 -0.97) and melanoma (RR ¼ 0.72, 95% CI, 0.65 -0.79) showed strong decreased risks for five or more siblings vs none. Prostate cancer risk for those with five or more older siblings vs none was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.23 -1.55). Having five or more younger siblings was most strongly associated with stomach cancer (RR ¼ 1.59, 95% CI, 1.29 -1.95) and melanoma (RR ¼ 0.68, 95% CI, 0.59 -0.79). We conclude that sibship characteristics are strong correlates of cancer risk at several sites; plausible interpretations include socioeconomic status.

show abstract

“…The other three studies showed no association with maternal age (Hemminki et al, 1999;HilakiviClarke et al, 2001;McCormack et al, 2003). Of the 14 case -control studies, 5 report a significant positive association between maternal age and breast cancer (Rothman et al, 1980;Janerich et al, 1989;Thompson and Janerich, 1990;Innes et al, 2002;Hodgsen et al, 2004), 3 studies report a non-significant positive association (Ekbom et al, 1997;Choi et al, 2005;Park et al, 2006) and 6 studies do not find an association between maternal age and breast cancer risk (Le Marchand et al, 1988;Sanderson et al, 1996;Newcomb et al, 1997;Weiss et al, 1997;Titus-Ernstoff et al, 2002;Mellemkjaer et al, 2003). Reasons for the inconsistencies in results may include the variety in study designs or study populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age of mother and grandmother in relation to a subject's breast cancer risk

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: On theoretical grounds, the age of the grandmother and the age of the mother at delivery of her daughter may affect the breast cancer risk of the granddaughter. METHODS: We used the data relating to the Diagnostic Research Mamma-carcinoma cohort (DOM (Diagnostisch Onderzoek Mammacarcinoom) 3), which comprises a population-based sample of 12 178 women aged 41 -63 years at enrolment in 1982 -85 and followed up until 2000. During follow-up 340 postmenopausal breast cancer cases were identified. To these we applied a casecohort design together with a random sample from the baseline cohort (n ¼ 1826). Of these study participants, we were able to retrieve the birth dates of 998 mothers (309 cases, 689 controls), and for 547 of these we also retrieved the birth dates of the grandmothers (197 cases, 350 controls). A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the effect of the age of the grandmother and the age of the mother on the breast cancer risk of the index women, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared with the reference group aged 25 -29.9 years, the group with the lowest maternal age (o25 years) had an ageadjusted HR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.19 -3.12) and the group with the highest maternal age (X40 years) had an age-adjusted HR of 1.58 (95% CI 0.01 -267.81), P-value for trend ¼ 0.62. Compared with the same reference group, the group with the lowest grandmaternal age (o25 years) had an age-adjusted HR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.24 -1.17) and the group with the highest grandmaternal age (X40 years) had an age-adjusted HR of 7.29 (95% CI 1.20 -44.46), P for trend ¼ 0.04. The associations did not change significantly after additional adjustment for various risk factors for breast cancer, neither for maternal age nor for grandmaternal age. CONCLUSION: This study does not suggest a major role of maternal age at delivery or grandmaternal age at delivery of the mother for the (grand)daughters' breast cancer risk.

show abstract

Birthweight, parental age, birth order and breast cancer risk in African-American and white women: a population-based case–control study

Abstract: Introduction Much recent work has focused on hypotheses that very early life exposures influence adult cancer risk. For breast cancer it has been hypothesized that high in utero estrogen exposure may increase risk.

Cited by 46 publications

References 46 publications

Birth weight and breast cancer risk

Birth weight and breast cancer risk

Number of siblings and the risk of solid tumours: a nation-wide study

Age of mother and grandmother in relation to a subject's breast cancer risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About