Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer - collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58 515 women with breast cancer and 95 067 women without the disease

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58 515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95 067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35-44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33-1.61, P<0.00001) for 45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver

Active and passive smoking and the risk of breast cancer in women aged 36–45 years: a population based case–control study in the UK

Active smoking has little or no effect on breast cancer risk but some investigators have suggested that passive smoking and its interaction with active smoking may be associated with an increased risk. In a population based case–control study of breast cancer in women aged 36–45 years at diagnosis, information on active smoking, passive smoking in the home, and other factors, was collected at interview from 639 cases and 640 controls. Women were categorised jointly by their active and passive smoking exposure. Among never smoking controls, women who also reported no passive smoking exposure were significantly more likely to be nulliparous and to be recent users of oral contraceptives. Among those never exposed to passive smoking, there was no significant association between active smoking and breast cancer, relative risk (RR) of 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–1.73) for past smokers and RR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.72–1.95) for current smokers, nor was there an association with age started, duration or intensity of active smoking. Compared with women who were never active nor passive smokers, there was no significant association between passive smoking in the home and breast cancer risk in never smokers, RR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.64–1.25), in past smokers, RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.75–1.56), or in current smokers, RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.67–1.30). There was no trend with increasing duration of passive smoking and there was no heterogeneity among any of the subgroups examined. In this study, there was no evidence of an association between either active smoking or passive smoking in the home and risk of breast cancer

Towards an integrated model for breast cancer etiology: The lifelong interplay of genes, lifestyle, and hormones

While the association of a number of risk factors, such as family history and reproductive patterns, with breast cancer has been well established for many years, work in the past 10–15 years also has added substantially to our understanding of disease etiology. Contributions of particular note include the delineation of the role of endogenous and exogenous estrogens to breast cancer risk, and the discovery and quantification of risk associated with several gene mutations (e.g. BRCA1). Although it is difficult to integrate all epidemiologic data into a single biologic model, it is clear that several important components or pathways exist. Early life events probably determine both the number of susceptible breast cells at risk and whether mutations occur in these cells. High endogenous estrogens are well established as an important cause of breast cancer, and many known risk factors appear to operate through this pathway. Estrogens (and probably other growth factors) appear to accelerate the development of breast cancer at many points along the progression from early mutation to tumor metastasis, and appear to be influential at many points in a woman's life. These data now provide a basis for a number of strategies that can reduce risk of breast cancer, although some strategies represent complex decision-making. Together, the modification of nutritional and lifestyle risk factors and the judicious use of chemopreventive agents could have a major impact on breast cancer incidence. Further research is needed in many areas, but a few specific arenas are given particular mention

Recent declines in breast cancer incidence: mounting evidence that reduced use of menopausal hormones is largely responsible

Substantial reductions in breast cancer incidence in women 50 years old or older have been observed recently in many developed countries, and falling use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) remains the most plausible explanation. In keeping with recent observations from the Women's Health Initiative, a report from the California Teachers Study cohort in this issue of Breast Cancer Research adds to this growing evidence. The investigators found a 26% reduction in invasive breast cancer in the cohort from 2000-2002 to 2003-2005, which accompanied an estimated 64% drop in HT use between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. By collating individual data on the use of HT and breast cancer incidence, they also demonstrated that the decline in incidence was concentrated in women who had ceased HT use. The decline reflected a decrease predominantly in oestrogen receptor-positive tumours in the context of stable screening patterns over the study period. Millions of women continue to use HT, and these findings support carefully targeted short duration use as an important ongoing strategy to minimise breast cancer risk

Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories?

A woman typically presents for genetic counselling because she has a strong family history and is interested in knowing the probability she will develop disease in the future; that is, her absolute risk. Relative risk for a given factor refers to risk compared with either population average risk (sense a), or risk when not having the factor, with all other factors held constant (sense b). Not understanding that these are three distinct concepts can result in failure to correctly appreciate the consequences of studies on clinical genetic testing. Several studies found that the frequencies of mutations in ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2 were many times greater for cases with a strong family history than for controls. To account for the selected case sampling (ascertainment), a statistical model that assumes that the effect of any measured variant multiplies the effect of unmeasured variants was applied. This multiplicative polygenic model in effect estimated the relative risk in the sense b, not sense a, and found it was in the range of 1.7 to 2.4. The authors concluded that the variants are "low penetrance". They failed to note that their model fits predicted that, for some women, absolute risk may be as high as for BRCA2 mutation carriers. This is because the relative risk multiplies polygenic risk, and the latter is predicted by family history. Therefore, mutation testing of these genes for women with a strong family history, especially if it is of early onset, may be as clinically relevant as it is for BRCA1 and BRCA2

Retrospective analysis of molecular scores for the prediction of distant recurrence according to baseline risk factors

This work was funded by grants from Cancer Research UK (programme Grant C569-A16891), the Royal Marsden NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and AstraZenec

A family history of breast cancer will not predict female early onset breast cancer in a population-based setting

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: An increased risk of breast cancer for relatives of breast cancer patients has been demonstrated in many studies, and having a relative diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age is an indication for breast cancer screening. This indication has been derived from estimates based on data from cancer-prone families or from BRCA1/2 mutation families, and might be biased because BRCA1/2 mutations explain only a small proportion of the familial clustering of breast cancer. The aim of the current study was to determine the predictive value of a family history of cancer with regard to early onset of female breast cancer in a population based setting. METHODS: An unselected sample of 1,987 women with and without breast cancer was studied with regard to the age of diagnosis of breast cancer. RESULTS: The risk of early-onset breast cancer was increased when there were: (1) at least 2 cases of female breast cancer in first-degree relatives (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.09; 95% CI: 128-7.44), (2) at least 2 cases of female breast cancer in first or second-degree relatives under the age of 50 (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.12-10.08), (3) at least 1 case of female breast cancer under the age of 40 in a first- or second-degree relative (yes/no; HR at age 30: 2.06; 95% CI: 0.83-5.12) and (4) any case of bilateral breast cancer (yes/no; HR at age 30: 3.47; 95%: 1.33-9.05). The positive predictive value of having 2 or more of these characteristics was 13% for breast cancer before the age of 70, 11% for breast cancer before the age of 50, and 1% for breast cancer before the age of 30. CONCLUSION: Applying family history related criteria in an unselected population could result in the screening of many women who will not develop breast cancer at an early age

Parity and breastfeeding are protective against breast cancer in Nigerian women

As the relation between reproductive factors and breast cancer risk has not been systematically studied in indigenous women of sub-Saharan Africa, we examined this in a case–control study in Nigeria. In-person interviews were conducted using structured questionnaires to collect detailed reproductive history in 819 breast cancer cases and 569 community controls between 1998 and 2006. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Compared with women with menarcheal age <17 years, the adjusted OR for women with menarcheal age ⩾17 years was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.54–0.95, P=0.02). Parity was negatively associated with risk (P-trend=0.02) but age at first live birth was not significant (P=0.16). Importantly, breast cancer risk decreased by 7% for every 12 months of breastfeeding (P-trend=0.005). It is worth noting that the distribution of reproductive risk factors changed significantly from early to late birth cohorts in the direction of increasing breast cancer incidence. Our findings also highlight the heterogeneity of breast cancer aetiology across populations, and indicate the need for further studies among indigenous sub-Saharan women