Literature DB >> 15477861

Birth weight is associated with postmenopausal breast cancer risk in Swedish women.

P H Lahmann1, B Gullberg, H Olsson, H Boeing, G Berglund, L Lissner.   

Abstract

There is some evidence that birth weight is associated with breast cancer. Whether this association differs between premenopausal and postmenopausal ages is still unclear. The results from this study suggest that higher birth weight is a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR 1.06, CI 1.00-1.12, per 100 g), independent of selected early-life and adult factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15477861      PMCID: PMC2409953          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


High birth weight is a risk factor for breast cancer in some, but not all studies (reviewed by Potischman and Troisi, 1999; Okasha ). Possible mechanisms for an association between larger size at birth and breast cancer include in utero exposure to high levels of oestrogens and growth hormones (Trichopoulos, 1990, 2003). The positive associations reported to date have been weak to modest and seem more apparent in premenopausal than in postmenopausal women (Potischman and Troisi, 1999; De Stavola ; McCormack ; Mellemkjaer ). Findings from two recent studies suggest that the positive association between birth weight and breast cancer risk is present irrespective of age at diagnosis (Ahlgren ; Kaijser ). The present study examines recorded birth weight in relation to breast cancer risk in Swedish women with postmenopausal breast cancer, controlling for other perinatal factors including socioeconomic status (SES) of origin and adulthood, as well as adult body mass index (BMI) measured prior to diagnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This case–control study was nested within the Malmö Diet and Cancer (MDC) cohort study using available birth record data from 131 incident breast cancer cases diagnosed between 1991 and 2001 and 345 age-matched controls. The MDC-study, a collaborative centre of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) (Riboli ), comprises 17 035 female participants residing in Malmö, the third largest city in Sweden (Berglund ). The present analysis is restricted to breast cancer incidence in the period from study enrolment (1991–1996) until December 2001 among 5313 women born in Malmö between 1924 and 1950. We further restricted the analysis to 89 singleton female cases aged ⩾55 years at breast cancer diagnosis and age-matched controls without history of breast cancer (n=238), due to low statistical power for the analysis in women aged <55 years. Subjects' hospital delivery records were located in the city archive of Malmö using the civil registration number of the mother, which was available through record linkage to the subject. Cases were matched with controls by age (years) at entry of the MDC-study. We aimed at identifying three controls per case. Due to limited resources, and exclusion of twin births, some cases were matched 1 : 1 (n=11) or 1 : 2 (n=7). The breast cancer cases were identified by active follow-up and by record-linkage with regional and national cancer registries using individual civil registration numbers assigned to all residents in Sweden. We abstracted birth characteristics as well as maternal information from the available birth records. Gestational age was estimated by using information on last menstrual period and delivery date. Unclassified gestational hypertension and/or proteinuria (Davey and MacGillivray, 1988) was used as proxy for pre-eclampsia, and is referred to as maternal hypertension/proteinuria in this study. Information on parental occupation, a marker of SES at origin, and adult characteristics, specifically BMI and educational level, were obtained from the database of the baseline examination (1991–1996). SES was classified according to the Nordic Occupation Classification System (Statistics Sweden, 1985). The MDC-study and the nested study were both approved by the Ethics Committee at Lund University, Sweden. We used conditional logistic regression to examine the effect of birth weight on breast cancer risk, adjusting for other perinatal and later-life factors: gestational age (weeks), maternal hypertension/proteinuria (no/yes), birth year, parental occupation (low to high), BMI (kg m−2), educational level (low to high). Birth year was included in all analyses to adjust for cohort effects. Birth weight was modelled both as a categorical (<3000 g reference, 3000–3499 g, 3500–3999 g, ⩾4000 g, or <3000 g reference, ⩾3000 g) and continuous variable.

RESULTS

On average, breast cancer cases had a 93.5 g higher birth weight than controls (Table 1 ). There were fewer cases with birth weights under 3000 g (15.7%) than controls (22.3%). Most subjects (93%) had been born after 37 completed weeks of gestation irrespective of case status. Mean gestational age in cases and controls were virtually identical. Maternal hypertension/proteinuria tended to be higher in controls than in cases. Neither mean maternal age nor birth order differed between cases and controls (not shown). The 89 cases had a mean age at diagnosis of 63.0 years (range 55–76).
Table 1

Perinatal and adult characteristics by breast cancer status, Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (n=327)

CharacteristicControls (n=238)Cases (n=89)
 Mean (s.d.)
Birth weight (g)3380.6 (560.4)3474.1 (572.0)
Gestational age (weeks)a39.5 (1.9)39.3 (2.1)
BMI (kg m−2) at baselineb25.7 (4.5)25.5 (4.3)
Age (years) at baselineb58.3 (5.9)58.0 (6.0)
Age (years) at diagnosis63.0 (5.6)
   
 N (%)
Birth year  
 1924–193060 (25)25 (28)
 1931–1940130 (55)47 (53)
 1941–195048 (20)17 (19)
   
Maternal hypertension/proteinuria  
 No163 (68)67 (75)
 Yes75 (32)22 (25)
   
Parental Occupationc  
 1 Low49 (21)14 (16)
 2 Medium84 (35)35 (39)
 3 High27 (11)10 (11)
 4 Unknown78 (33)30 (34)
   
Own educational attainment  
 1 (⩽8 years)91 (38)29 (33)
 2 (9–12years)129 (54)53 (60)
 3 (>12 years, university degree)17 (7)7 (8)

Numbers of cases and controls do not add up to total study population due to missing data on gestational age (n=3).

Start of follow-up (1991–1996).

Low (unskilled manual worker), medium (skilled manual and low nonmanual worker), high (middle and high nonmanual worker), unknown (mixed group: farmers, employers, self-employed, missings).

Numbers of cases and controls do not add up to total study population due to missing data on gestational age (n=3). Start of follow-up (1991–1996). Low (unskilled manual worker), medium (skilled manual and low nonmanual worker), high (middle and high nonmanual worker), unknown (mixed group: farmers, employers, self-employed, missings). Increased birth weight was significantly associated with elevated risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (Table 2 ). The risk increased by 6% per 100 g birth weight increase (OR 1.06, 1.00–1.12) adjusted for perinatal factors. Women who weighed over 4000 g at birth had a greater than two-fold excess risk (OR 2.59, CI 0.95–7.12) compared to controls (<3000 g) (model 1). Both gestational age and maternal hypertension/proteinuria were inversely, though not significantly, associated with breast cancer risk, being reduced by 44% (OR=0.56, CI 0.27–1.14). Neither the inclusion of parental occupation (model 2) nor the adjustment for adult risk factors, that is, BMI and educational level (model 3), attenuated the OR for continuous birth weight. Using percentage body fat as adult body measure instead of BMI did not appreciably attenuate the risk estimate for birth weight (data not shown). Similarly, multivariate adjustment for other breast cancer risk factors that were not included in model 3, such as age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and usual alcohol consumption, attenuated the risk estimate by only 5%.
Table 2

Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for breast cancer by birth weight at postmenopausal ages (cases ⩾55 years at diagnosis), Malmö Diet and Cancer Study

Birth weight (g)Model 1 Adjusted for perinatal factors
Model 2 Adjusted for perinatal factors and parental occupation
Model 3 Further adjusted for adult factors
 CasesaORCIORCIORCI
Birth weight (100 g)881.061.00–1.121.061.00–1.121.061.00–1.12
  P=0.038 P=0.040 P=0.044 
Categorical       
 <300014Reference Reference Reference 
 3000–3500291.970.84–4.591.810.77–4.281.890.79–4.51
 3500–4000302.390.99–5.772.200.90–5.362.300.92–5.73
 >4000152.590.95–7.122.440.89–6.702.660.96–7.41
        
Binary       
 <300014Reference Reference Reference 
 ⩾3000742.180.98–4.842.030.91–4.532.120.93–4.81

Number of cases does not add up to total case population due to missing data on gestational age (n=1). Model 1: adjusted for gestational age, birth year, maternal hypertension/proteinuria. Model 2: adjusted for perinatal factors (model 1) and parental occupation. Model 3: adjusted for perinatal factors/parental occupation (model 2), and adult BMI, educational attainment.

Number of cases does not add up to total case population due to missing data on gestational age (n=1). Model 1: adjusted for gestational age, birth year, maternal hypertension/proteinuria. Model 2: adjusted for perinatal factors (model 1) and parental occupation. Model 3: adjusted for perinatal factors/parental occupation (model 2), and adult BMI, educational attainment. Birth weight, adjusted for gestational age, was positively correlated with adult BMI (partial r=0.07, P=0.18), which was itself not a significant risk factor for breast cancer in this study. Other indicators of birth size, such as birth length, ponderal index (g cm−3), and head circumference were positively, but not significantly, associated with postmenopausal breast cancer (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

In this nested case–control study, increasing birth weight was associated with increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer diagnosed at age 55 years or older, significantly so when birth weight was examined as continuous variable (6% risk increase per 100 g), and persisted after adjustment for other perinatal and adult factors. Our finding in postmenopausal women may be contrasted with previous studies on premenopausal women. Case–control (Michels ; Sanderson ; Innes ; Mellemkjaer ) and prospective studies (De Stavola ; McCormack ) have generally yielded positive associations between high birth weight and early-onset breast cancer. However, birth weight was not found to be related to premenopausal breast cancer risk in Chinese women, considered a low-risk population (Sanderson ). Moreover, Kaijser investigating a Swedish cohort of prematurely born women, found a positive association between birth weight and adult breast cancer risk independent of age at onset. Of the five studies of birth weight and postmenopausal breast cancer (⩾50 years), only one, conducted in Denmark, indicated a significant positive trend in rates of breast cancer with birth weight (9% per 1000 g) (Ahlgren ). A weak J-shaped pattern was noted in US women aged 50–79 years with the highest risk in the birth weight category >4500 g (OR 1.18, CI 0.92–1.51, vs reference group) (Titus-Ernstoff ). In the other three studies, nonsignificant positive (Michels ) and inverse (Sanderson ; McCormack ) trends were observed. Strengths of our study were the availability of data on recorded birth weight as well as gestational age, an important determinant of foetal growth. Therefore data were not subject to recall bias or residual confounding due to lack of adjustment for gestational duration. Only one other study had information on both recorded birth weight and gestational age (McCormack ). Other perinatal factors that correlate with oestrogen level during pregnancy, particularly twinning, pre-eclampsia, maternal age, and birth order are considered early life risk factors for cancer (Ekbom, 1998; Potischman and Troisi, 1999; Okasha ). Twin births were excluded from our study. Maternal hypertension/proteinuria was inversely associated with breast cancer, which appears to be in line with earlier Swedish reports indicating that pre-eclampsia reduced breast cancer risk in female offspring (Ekbom , 1997). Maternal age and birth order were not associated with breast cancer in this study (data not shown), and were omitted from the analysis since these factors did not significantly improve the tested models. Data on birth outcome may be confounded by socioeconomic factors (Joseph and Kramer, 1996). However, in our study, adjustment for parental occupation did not affect the relation between birth weight and cancer risk, corroborating other reports using father's occupation as marker of early life SES (De Stavola ; Vatten ). In the few studies taking account of adult risk factors, including adult body measures, risk estimates of birth weight were not appreciably altered (Michels ; De Stavola ). Similarly, adjustment in our study for adult relative weight (BMI) did not change the magnitude of the effect of birth weight on breast cancer. Despite lack of statistical significance in some of the modelling, there is a strong suggestion of an increase in breast cancer risk with higher birth weight in this population of Swedish postmenopausal women, independent of adult body size. This finding lends support to the importance of prenatal factors in the aetiology of breast cancer.
  22 in total

1.  Birth weight and risk of early-onset breast cancer (Denmark).

Authors:  Lene Mellemkjaer; Mette Lena Olsen; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Ane Marie Thulstrup; Jørn Olsen; Jørgen H Olsen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 2.  Exposures in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood and breast cancer risk: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mona Okasha; Peter McCarron; David Gunnell; George Davey Smith
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Early life factors in relation to breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Kathleen M Egan; Polly A Newcomb; Jiao Ding; Amy Trentham-Dietz; E Robert Greenberg; John A Baron; Dimitrios Trichopoulos; Walter C Willett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Birth weight and risk of breast cancer in a cohort of 106,504 women.

Authors:  Martin Ahlgren; Thorkild Sørensen; Jan Wohlfahrt; Agústa Haflidadóttir; Claus Holst; Mads Melbye
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2003-12-20       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Fetal growth and subsequent risk of breast cancer: results from long term follow up of Swedish cohort.

Authors:  V A McCormack; I dos Santos Silva; B L De Stavola; R Mohsen; D A Leon; H O Lithell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-01

6.  European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection.

Authors:  E Riboli; K J Hunt; N Slimani; P Ferrari; T Norat; M Fahey; U R Charrondière; B Hémon; C Casagrande; J Vignat; K Overvad; A Tjønneland; F Clavel-Chapelon; A Thiébaut; J Wahrendorf; H Boeing; D Trichopoulos; A Trichopoulou; P Vineis; D Palli; H B Bueno-De-Mesquita; P H M Peeters; E Lund; D Engeset; C A González; A Barricarte; G Berglund; G Hallmans; N E Day; T J Key; R Kaaks; R Saracci
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.022

7.  Birthweight, childhood growth and risk of breast cancer in a British cohort.

Authors:  B L Stavola; R Hardy; D Kuh; I S Silva; M Wadsworth; A J Swerdlow
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Weight at birth and adolescence and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a low-risk population.

Authors:  M Sanderson; X O Shu; F Jin; Q Dai; Z Ruan; Y-T Gao; W Zheng
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-01-07       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Intrauterine environment, mammary gland mass and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Dimitrios Trichopoulos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2002-11-07       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Preterm birth, birth weight, and subsequent risk of female breast cancer.

Authors:  M Kaijser; O Akre; S Cnattingius; A Ekbom
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-11-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

1.  Perinatal characteristics and breast cancer risk in daughters: a Scandinavian population-based study.

Authors:  R Troisi; T Grotmol; J Jacobsen; S Tretli; H T Sørensen; M Gissler; R Kaaja; N Potischman; A Ekbom; R N Hoover; O Stephansson
Journal:  J Dev Orig Health Dis       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 2.  The developmental origins of adult disease.

Authors:  Peter D Gluckman; Mark A Hanson; Catherine Pinal
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Conditions in utero and cancer risk.

Authors:  Tom Grotmol; Elisabete Weiderpass; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-09-13       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 4.  Nutrition in early life, and risk of cancer and metabolic disease: alternative endings in an epigenetic tale?

Authors:  Graham C Burdge; Karen A Lillycrop; Alan A Jackson
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 3.718

5.  Birth weight and subsequent risk of cancer.

Authors:  Cassandra N Spracklen; Robert B Wallace; Shawnita Sealy-Jefferson; Jennifer G Robinson; Jo L Freudenheim; Melissa F Wellons; Audrey F Saftlas; Linda G Snetselaar; JoAnn E Manson; Lifang Hou; Lihong Qi; Rowan T Chlebowski; Kelli K Ryckman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Birth weight and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  R Troisi; E E Hatch; L Titus-Ernstoff; J R Palmer; M Hyer; W C Strohsnitter; S J Robboy; R Kaufman; A Herbst; E Adam; R N Hoover
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Weight gain in pregnancy, maternal age and gestational age in relation to fetal macrosomia.

Authors:  Yi Li; Qi-Fei Liu; Dan Zhang; Ying Shen; Kui Ye; Han-Lin Lai; Hai-Qing Wang; Chuan-Lai Hu; Qi-Hong Zhao; Li Li
Journal:  Clin Nutr Res       Date:  2015-04-13

8.  The Association Between High Birth Weight and Long-Term Outcomes-Implications for Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Åsa Magnusson; Hannele Laivuori; Anne Loft; Nan B Oldereid; Anja Pinborg; Max Petzold; Liv Bente Romundstad; Viveca Söderström-Anttila; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 3.418

Review 9.  Intrauterine environments and breast cancer risk: meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Sue Kyung Park; Daehee Kang; Katherine A McGlynn; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Yeonju Kim; Keun Young Yoo; Louise A Brinton
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-01-21       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Birth size and breast cancer risk: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 studies.

Authors:  Isabel dos Santos Silva; Bianca De Stavola; Valerie McCormack
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.