OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the potential relationship between nightshift work and breast cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing women in shift work to those with no-shift work reporting incidence of breast cancer. We calculated incremental risk ratios (RR) per five years of night-shift work and per 300 night shift increases in exposure and combined these in a random effects dose-response meta-analysis. We assessed study quality in ten domains of bias. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies: 12 case-control and 4 cohort studies. There was a 9% risk increase per five years of night-shift work exposure in case-control studies [RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.02-1.20; I (2) = 37%, 9 studies], but not in cohort studies (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.05; I (2) = 53%, 3 studies). Heterogeneity was significant overall (I (2) = 55%, 12 studies). Results for 300 night shifts were similar (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.10; I (2) = 58%, 8 studies). Sensitivity analysis using exposure transformations such as cubic splines, a fixed-effect model, or including only better quality studies did not change the results. None of the 16 studies had a low risk of bias, and 6 studies had a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low quality of exposure data and the difference in effect by study design, our findings indicate insufficient evidence for a link between night-shift work and breast cancer. Objective prospective exposure measurement is needed in future studies.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the potential relationship between nightshift work and breast cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing women in shift work to those with no-shift work reporting incidence of breast cancer. We calculated incremental risk ratios (RR) per five years of night-shift work and per 300 night shift increases in exposure and combined these in a random effects dose-response meta-analysis. We assessed study quality in ten domains of bias. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies: 12 case-control and 4 cohort studies. There was a 9% risk increase per five years of night-shift work exposure in case-control studies [RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.02-1.20; I (2) = 37%, 9 studies], but not in cohort studies (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.05; I (2) = 53%, 3 studies). Heterogeneity was significant overall (I (2) = 55%, 12 studies). Results for 300 night shifts were similar (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.10; I (2) = 58%, 8 studies). Sensitivity analysis using exposure transformations such as cubic splines, a fixed-effect model, or including only better quality studies did not change the results. None of the 16 studies had a low risk of bias, and 6 studies had a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low quality of exposure data and the difference in effect by study design, our findings indicate insufficient evidence for a link between night-shift work and breast cancer. Objective prospective exposure measurement is needed in future studies.
Authors: Cody Ramin; Elizabeth E Devore; Weike Wang; Jeffrey Pierre-Paul; Lani R Wegrzyn; Eva S Schernhammer Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Karla Romero Starke; Marlen Kofahl; Alice Freiberg; Melanie Schubert; Mascha Luisa Groß; Stefanie Schmauder; Janice Hegewald; Daniel Kämpf; Johanna Stranzinger; Albert Nienhaus; Andreas Seidler Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Chunla He; Sonia Taj Anand; Mark H Ebell; John E Vena; Sara Wagner Robb Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Charleen D Adams; Kristina M Jordahl; Wade Copeland; Dana K Mirick; Xiaoling Song; Cassandra L Sather; Karl Kelsey; Andres Houseman; Scott Davis; Timothy Randolph; Parveen Bhatti Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Emilie Cordina-Duverger; Florence Menegaux; Alexandru Popa; Sylvia Rabstein; Volker Harth; Beate Pesch; Thomas Brüning; Lin Fritschi; Deborah C Glass; Jane S Heyworth; Thomas C Erren; Gemma Castaño-Vinyals; Kyriaki Papantoniou; Ana Espinosa; Manolis Kogevinas; Anne Grundy; John J Spinelli; Kristan J Aronson; Pascal Guénel Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 8.082