Susan R Sturgeon1, Ashley Doherty, Katherine W Reeves, Carol Bigelow, Frank Z Stanczyk, Judith K Ockene, Simin Liu, JoAnn E Manson, Marian L Neuhouser. 1. Authors' Affiliations: Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst; Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester; Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California; Department of Epidemiology and Medicine, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island; and Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results from prospective studies on the association between urinary levels of melatonin and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer have been mixed. Several although not all studies have found lower urinary levels of melatonin in women who developed breast cancer compared with cancer-free women. METHODS: We examined the association between urinary levels of melatonin and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women in a case-control study nested in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Cohort. Levels of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin were measured in first morning voids from 258 women who later developed breast cancer and from 515 matched controls. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fully adjusted risk estimates of breast cancer, relative to the lowest quartile level of creatinine-adjusted melatonin, were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.67-1.71), 1.26 (95% CI, 0.79-2.01), and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.78-2.02) for women in the second, third, and highest quartile (Ptrend = 0.27). Comparable results for cases diagnosed less than four years after urinary collection and matched controls were 1.0, 1.25 (95% CI, 0.51-3.06), 1.85 (95% CI, 0.75-4.57), and 1.94 (95% CI, 0.75-5.03; Ptrend = 0.11). Melatonin levels and breast cancer were not associated in cases diagnosed four or more years after urinary collection and matched controls (Ptrend = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that higher urinary levels of melatonin are inversely associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. IMPACT: Accumulating discrepancies in results across studies warrant further exploration.
BACKGROUND: Results from prospective studies on the association between urinary levels of melatonin and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer have been mixed. Several although not all studies have found lower urinary levels of melatonin in women who developed breast cancer compared with cancer-free women. METHODS: We examined the association between urinary levels of melatonin and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women in a case-control study nested in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Cohort. Levels of 6-sulfatoxymelatonin were measured in first morning voids from 258 women who later developed breast cancer and from 515 matched controls. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to calculate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fully adjusted risk estimates of breast cancer, relative to the lowest quartile level of creatinine-adjusted melatonin, were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.67-1.71), 1.26 (95% CI, 0.79-2.01), and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.78-2.02) for women in the second, third, and highest quartile (Ptrend = 0.27). Comparable results for cases diagnosed less than four years after urinary collection and matched controls were 1.0, 1.25 (95% CI, 0.51-3.06), 1.85 (95% CI, 0.75-4.57), and 1.94 (95% CI, 0.75-5.03; Ptrend = 0.11). Melatonin levels and breast cancer were not associated in cases diagnosed four or more years after urinary collection and matched controls (Ptrend = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that higher urinary levels of melatonin are inversely associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. IMPACT: Accumulating discrepancies in results across studies warrant further exploration.
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Eva S Schernhammer; Franco Berrino; Vittorio Krogh; Giorgio Secreto; Andrea Micheli; Elisabetta Venturelli; Sara Grioni; Christopher T Sempos; Adalberto Cavalleri; Holger J Schünemann; Sabrina Strano; Paola Muti Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Biren B Kamdar; Ana I Tergas; Farrah J Mateen; Neil H Bhayani; Jiwon Oh Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: M Kakizaki; S Kuriyama; T Sone; K Ohmori-Matsuda; A Hozawa; N Nakaya; S Fukudo; I Tsuji Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Maryssa Shigesato; Yosuke Kawai; Cherie Guillermo; Fadi Youkhana; Yurii B Shvetsov; Veronica W Setiawan; Christopher A Haiman; Loïc Le Marchand; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Susan B Brown; Susan E Hankinson; A Heather Eliassen; Katherine W Reeves; Jing Qian; Kathleen F Arcaro; Lani R Wegrzyn; Walter C Willett; Eva S Schernhammer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Chris Minella; Pierre Coliat; Shanti Amé; Karl Neuberger; Alexandre Stora; Carole Mathelin; Nathalie Reix Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 2.506