Chunla He1, Sonia Taj Anand, Mark H Ebell, John E Vena, Sara Wagner Robb. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 101 Buck Road, Health Sciences Campus, B.S. Miller Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA, willahe@uga.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Shift work, short sleep duration, employment as a flight attendant, and exposure to light at night, all potential causes of circadian disruption, have been inconsistently associated with breast cancer (BrCA) risk. The aim of this meta-analysis is to quantitatively evaluate the combined and independent effects of exposure to different sources of circadian disruption on BrCA risk in women. METHODS: Relevant studies published through January 2014 were identified by searching the PubMed database. The pooled relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed- or random effects models as indicated by heterogeneity tests. Generalized least squares trend test was used to assess dose-response relationships. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies, 15 on shift work, 7 on short sleep duration, 3 on flight attendants, and 6 on light at night were included in the analysis. The combined analysis suggested a significantly positive association between circadian disruption and BrCA risk (RR = 1.14; 95 % CI 1.08-1.21). Separate analyses showed that the RR for BrCA was 1.19 (95 % CI 1.08-1.32) for shift work, 1.120 (95 % CI 1.119-1.121) for exposure to light at night, 1.56 (95 % CI 1.10-2.21) for employment as a flight attendant, and 0.96 (95 % CI 0.86-1.06) for short sleep duration. A dose-response analysis showed that each 10-year increment of shift work was associated with 16 % higher risk of BrCA (95 % CI 1.06-1.27) based on selected case-control studies. No significant dose-response effects of exposure to light at night and sleep deficiency were found on BrCA risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that circadian disruption is associated with an increased BrCA risk in women. This association varied by specific sources of circadian disrupting exposures, and a dose-response relationship remains uncertain. Therefore, future rigorous prospective studies are needed to confirm these relationships.
PURPOSE: Shift work, short sleep duration, employment as a flight attendant, and exposure to light at night, all potential causes of circadian disruption, have been inconsistently associated with breast cancer (BrCA) risk. The aim of this meta-analysis is to quantitatively evaluate the combined and independent effects of exposure to different sources of circadian disruption on BrCA risk in women. METHODS: Relevant studies published through January 2014 were identified by searching the PubMed database. The pooled relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed- or random effects models as indicated by heterogeneity tests. Generalized least squares trend test was used to assess dose-response relationships. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies, 15 on shift work, 7 on short sleep duration, 3 on flight attendants, and 6 on light at night were included in the analysis. The combined analysis suggested a significantly positive association between circadian disruption and BrCA risk (RR = 1.14; 95 % CI 1.08-1.21). Separate analyses showed that the RR for BrCA was 1.19 (95 % CI 1.08-1.32) for shift work, 1.120 (95 % CI 1.119-1.121) for exposure to light at night, 1.56 (95 % CI 1.10-2.21) for employment as a flight attendant, and 0.96 (95 % CI 0.86-1.06) for short sleep duration. A dose-response analysis showed that each 10-year increment of shift work was associated with 16 % higher risk of BrCA (95 % CI 1.06-1.27) based on selected case-control studies. No significant dose-response effects of exposure to light at night and sleep deficiency were found on BrCA risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that circadian disruption is associated with an increased BrCA risk in women. This association varied by specific sources of circadian disrupting exposures, and a dose-response relationship remains uncertain. Therefore, future rigorous prospective studies are needed to confirm these relationships.
Authors: Sharea Ijaz; Jos Verbeek; Andreas Seidler; Marja-Liisa Lindbohm; Anneli Ojajärvi; Nicola Orsini; Giovanni Costa; Kaisa Neuvonen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Anders Knutsson; Lars Alfredsson; Berndt Karlsson; Torbjörn Åkerstedt; Eleonor I Fransson; Peter Westerholm; Hugo Westerlund Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: L Fritschi; T C Erren; D C Glass; J Girschik; A K Thomson; C Saunders; T Boyle; S El-Zaemey; P Rogers; S Peters; T Slevin; A D'Orsogna; F de Vocht; R Vermeulen; J S Heyworth Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 7.640
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: L T Stayner; J J Collins; Y L Guo; D Heederik; M Kogevinas; K Steenland; C Wesseling; P A Demers Journal: Curr Environ Health Rep Date: 2017-09
Authors: Katharina M A Gabriel; Helga U Kuechly; Fabio Falchi; Werner Wosniok; Franz Hölker Journal: Int J Biometeorol Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.787
Authors: Robert L Owens; Kathryn A Gold; David Gozal; Paul E Peppard; Jonathan C Jun; Andrew J Dannenberg; Scott M Lippman; Atul Malhotra Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-09-07
Authors: Tiffany A Katz; Anna H Wu; Frank Z Stanczyk; Renwei Wang; Woon-Puay Koh; Jian-Min Yuan; Steffi Oesterreich; Lesley M Butler Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ruby Fore; Jaime E Hart; Christine Choirat; Jennifer W Thompson; Kathleen Lynch; Francine Laden; Jorge E Chavarro; Peter James Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254