BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies to assess risk factors for breast cancer often do not differentiate between different types of breast cancers. We applied a general linear model to determine whether data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program on annual county level age-adjusted incidence rates of breast cancer with and without estrogen receptors (ER+ and ER-) were associated with environmental pollutants. RESULTS: Our final model explained approximately 38% of the variation in the rate of ER+ breast cancer. In contrast, we were only able to explain 14% of the variation in the rate of ER- breast cancer with the same set of environmental variables. Only ER+ breast cancers were positively associated with the EPA's estimated risk of cancer based on toxic air emissions and the proportion of agricultural land in a county. Meteorological variables, including short wave radiation, temperature, precipitation, and water vapor pressure, were also significantly associated with the rate of ER+ breast cancer, after controlling for age, race, premature mortality from heart disease, and unemployment rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were consistent with what we expected, given the fact that many of the commonly used pesticides and air pollutants included in the EPA cancer risk score are classified as endocrine disruptors and ER+ breast cancers respond more strongly to estrogen than ER- breast cancers. The findings of this study suggest that ER+ and ER- breast cancers have different risk factors, which should be taken into consideration in future studies that seek to understand environmental risk factors for breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies to assess risk factors for breast cancer often do not differentiate between different types of breast cancers. We applied a general linear model to determine whether data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program on annual county level age-adjusted incidence rates of breast cancer with and without estrogen receptors (ER+ and ER-) were associated with environmental pollutants. RESULTS: Our final model explained approximately 38% of the variation in the rate of ER+ breast cancer. In contrast, we were only able to explain 14% of the variation in the rate of ER- breast cancer with the same set of environmental variables. Only ER+ breast cancers were positively associated with the EPA's estimated risk of cancer based on toxic air emissions and the proportion of agricultural land in a county. Meteorological variables, including short wave radiation, temperature, precipitation, and water vapor pressure, were also significantly associated with the rate of ER+ breast cancer, after controlling for age, race, premature mortality from heart disease, and unemployment rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were consistent with what we expected, given the fact that many of the commonly used pesticides and air pollutants included in the EPA cancer risk score are classified as endocrine disruptors and ER+ breast cancers respond more strongly to estrogen than ER- breast cancers. The findings of this study suggest that ER+ and ER- breast cancers have different risk factors, which should be taken into consideration in future studies that seek to understand environmental risk factors for breast cancer.
Authors: I Romieu; W C Willett; G A Colditz; M J Stampfer; B Rosner; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-09-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nicole M Davis; Melissa Sokolosky; Kristin Stadelman; Steve L Abrams; Massimo Libra; Saverio Candido; Ferdinando Nicoletti; Jerry Polesel; Roberta Maestro; Antonino D'Assoro; Lyudmyla Drobot; Dariusz Rakus; Agnieszka Gizak; Piotr Laidler; Joanna Dulińska-Litewka; Joerg Basecke; Sanja Mijatovic; Danijela Maksimovic-Ivanic; Giuseppe Montalto; Melchiorre Cervello; Timothy L Fitzgerald; Zoya Demidenko; Alberto M Martelli; Lucio Cocco; Linda S Steelman; James A McCubrey Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2014-07-15
Authors: Nicole M Niehoff; Hazel B Nichols; Alexandra J White; Christine G Parks; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Dale P Sandler Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Adrianne K Holmes; Kathryn R Koller; Stephanie M Kieszak; Andreas Sjodin; Antonia M Calafat; Frank D Sacco; D Wayne Varner; Anne P Lanier; Carol H Rubin Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 1.228