PURPOSE: Epidemiologic studies suggest that prolactin is associated with breast cancer risk in older women. Because of limited prospective data, particularly in younger women, we examined whether prolactin concentrations were associated with breast cancer risk among women 42 to 55 years (68% premenopausal) from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), and then conducted a pooled analysis of three studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis included 377 cases of breast cancer diagnosed after blood draw and before June 2000; two controls were matched per case on age, menopausal status at blood draw and diagnosis, fasting status, and time of day and month of blood collection. These data were pooled with two previously published data sets from the NHS and NHSII cohorts (n = 1,539 cases, 2,681 controls; ages 32 to 70 years). RESULTS: Prolactin was modestly associated with an increased breast cancer risk (relative risk [RR], top v bottom quartile = 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9; P for trend = .12). Risk estimates did not vary by menopausal status, tumor invasiveness, or estrogen receptor (ER) status. In the pooled analysis, the overall RR was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6; P for trend = .002), and did not vary by menopausal status (P for interaction = .95). The risk was strongest for women with ER+ tumors (RR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0; P for trend < .001). Correcting for within-person variability, the RR comparing the median of the top versus the bottom prolactin quartile increased from 1.3 to 1.7 for all women and from 1.5 to 2.1 for ER+ cases. CONCLUSION: These data, in conjunction with experimental studies, indicate that prolactin likely is important in breast cancer etiology, particularly ER+ tumors, over a wide range of ages.
PURPOSE: Epidemiologic studies suggest that prolactin is associated with breast cancer risk in older women. Because of limited prospective data, particularly in younger women, we examined whether prolactin concentrations were associated with breast cancer risk among women 42 to 55 years (68% premenopausal) from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), and then conducted a pooled analysis of three studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis included 377 cases of breast cancer diagnosed after blood draw and before June 2000; two controls were matched per case on age, menopausal status at blood draw and diagnosis, fasting status, and time of day and month of blood collection. These data were pooled with two previously published data sets from the NHS and NHSII cohorts (n = 1,539 cases, 2,681 controls; ages 32 to 70 years). RESULTS:Prolactin was modestly associated with an increased breast cancer risk (relative risk [RR], top v bottom quartile = 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9; P for trend = .12). Risk estimates did not vary by menopausal status, tumor invasiveness, or estrogen receptor (ER) status. In the pooled analysis, the overall RR was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6; P for trend = .002), and did not vary by menopausal status (P for interaction = .95). The risk was strongest for women with ER+ tumors (RR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0; P for trend < .001). Correcting for within-person variability, the RR comparing the median of the top versus the bottom prolactin quartile increased from 1.3 to 1.7 for all women and from 1.5 to 2.1 for ER+ cases. CONCLUSION: These data, in conjunction with experimental studies, indicate that prolactin likely is important in breast cancer etiology, particularly ER+ tumors, over a wide range of ages.
Authors: Feng Fang; Jiamao Zheng; Traci L Galbaugh; Alyson A Fiorillo; Elizabeth E Hjort; Xianke Zeng; Charles V Clevenger Journal: J Mol Endocrinol Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 5.098
Authors: Joanne Kotsopoulos; Shelley S Tworoger; Hannia Campos; Fung-Lung Chung; Charles V Clevenger; Adrian A Franke; Christos S Mantzoros; Vincent Ricchiuti; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson; A Heather Eliassen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David J Hunter; Peter Kraft; Kevin B Jacobs; David G Cox; Meredith Yeager; Susan E Hankinson; Sholom Wacholder; Zhaoming Wang; Robert Welch; Amy Hutchinson; Junwen Wang; Kai Yu; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Nick Orr; Walter C Willett; Graham A Colditz; Regina G Ziegler; Christine D Berg; Saundra S Buys; Catherine A McCarty; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Eugenia E Calle; Michael J Thun; Richard B Hayes; Margaret Tucker; Daniela S Gerhard; Joseph F Fraumeni; Robert N Hoover; Gilles Thomas; Stephen J Chanock Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2007-05-27 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Katherine W Reeves; Olivia I Okereke; Jing Qian; Shelley S Tworoger; Megan S Rice; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Angela J Fought; Claire McGathey; Denise M Scholtens; Richard E Heinz; Rick Lowe; Yvonne B Feeney; Oukseub Lee; Thomas E Kmiecik; Judith A Wolfman; Charles V Clevenger; Peter H Gann; Susan Gapstur; Robert T Chatterton; Seema A Khan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Xuefen Su; Susan E Hankinson; Charles V Clevenger; A Heather Eliassen; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Susan B Brown; Susan E Hankinson; Kathleen F Arcaro; Jing Qian; Katherine W Reeves Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Valerie A McCormack; Mitch Dowsett; Elizabeth Folkerd; Nichola Johnson; Claire Palles; Ben Coupland; Jeff M Holly; Sarah J Vinnicombe; Nicholas M Perry; Isabel dos Santos Silva Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.466