Breast Cancer in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women2

Stavraky, Kathleen M.; Emmons, Susan

doi:10.1093/jnci/53.3.647

Cited by 87 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps small numbers prevented us from observing the progressive increase in risk found in many studies (4, 7-9, 20, 21). In parous women, the number of liveborn children had no significant influence on breast cancer risk and this, again, agrees with several studies (5,8,21). Others have shown, however, a clear linear trend with decreasing risk as the number of live born children increased (6,7,9,11).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Epidemiologic studies of breast cancer risk have identified numerous host and environmental determinants (1-13) that presumably play an etiologic role in the development of the disease. While the majority of these studies have used case-control designs (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(8)(9)(10)(11), a few cohort studies have been reported, though none have involved an essentially representative sample of women from the United States (7,12,13).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A prospective study of reproductive, familial, and socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer using NHANES I data

Cl¹,

Jones²,

Schatzkin³

et al. 1989

Maturitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective study of reproductive, familial, and socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer using NHANES I data

Cl¹,

Jones²,

Schatzkin³

et al. 1989

Maturitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We therefore suggested that hospitalized women were biased with respect to age at first birth. Although some subsequent studies have failed to confirm the influence of age at first birth (Sartwell et al, 1977;TheinHlaing & Thein-Maung-Myint, 1.978) or found it restricted to young (Craig et al, 1974;Wynder et al, 1978) or older women (Stavraky & Emmons, 1974) other investigations using population controls have revealed that this factor has a significant influence (Shapiro et al, 1973;Lilienfeld et al, 1975;Soini, 1977;Farewell et al, 1977). These controversial findings were the reason for the present study.…”

Section: The High and Increasing Incidencementioning

confidence: 59%

“…This was restricted, however, to pre-and peri-menopausal women. On the other hand, Stavraky & Emmons (1974) found the same influence in postmenopausal women only. One study in the U.S. (Sartwell et al, 1977) and one in Burma (Thein-Hlaing & Thein-Maung-Myint, 1978) showed no significant relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Age at first birth, parity and risk of breast cancer in a Swedish population

Adami¹,

Hansen²,

Jung³

et al. 1980

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary.-A case-control study was conducted over a period of 11 months in an area containing one-third of the Swedish population. One thousand and one patients participated, constituting 94°, of all women newly diagnosed as having breast cancer within the area. They were compared with 1,001 age-matched, non-hospitalized controls without breast cancer, selected by paired sampling from a population register. The risk of breast cancer was slightly, but significantly, related to parity, the standardized relative risk (SRR) being 1P35 for nulliparous women as compared to ever parous. In the different parity groups a risk significantly lower than that for nulliparous women was found only for women with more than 2 children (SRR = 0-59) but the trend with parity was highly significant (P <0-001). Age at first birth was not found to be an important risk factor for breast cancer. SRR was lower than for nulliparous women in all groups of women with their first birth before the age of 35 years, but the difference was significant (P <0 05) only for those with the first birth between 20 and 24 (SRR=0-69) and 25 and 29 (SRR=0-69) years of age. The trend with age at first birth (P < 0 05) disappeared after stratification for parity, suggesting that it was a confounding factor.

show abstract

“…Likewise, a significant protective effect of high parity has been reported to be absent (Hunt et al, 1980;McTierman & Thomas, 1986), confined to premenopausal (Lipnick et al, 1984) or post-menopausal (Paffenbarger et al, 1980;Pathak et al, 1986) women, or present irrespective of age (Helmrich et al, 1983;Byers et al, 1985). A first birth at an early age has been found to entail a reduced risk of developing breast cancer only or primarily before menopause (Lipnick et al, 1984;Ewertz & Duffy 1988;Layde et al, 1989), after menopause (Stavraky & Emmons, 1974;Lubin et al, 1982;Byers et al, 1985), or at all ages (Tulinius et al, 1978;Kelsey, 1979;Paffenbarger et al, 1980;Helmrich et al, 1983;Negri et al, 1988;Layde et al, 1989). A protective effect of late menarche has been shown in premenopausal women (Stavraky & Emmons, 1974;Paffenbarger et al, 1980;Helmrich et al, 1983;McTierman & Thomas, 1986), post-menopausal women (Choi et al, 1978;Byers et al, 1985) and both categories (Kelsey, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%