Mohammadhossein Hajiebrahimi1, Sven Cnattingius2, Mats Lambe3, Shahram Bahmanyar4. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health, Public Health Faculty, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran Mohammadhossein.Hajiebrahimi@ki.se. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Unit. 3. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, Regional Cancer Center, Uppsala, Sweden and. 4. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, Department of Public Health, Public Health Faculty, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reproductive factors are well-known risk factors for premenopausal breast cancer (PBC). It is unknown whether these associations are modified by familial factors, including genetic and early environment factors. METHODS: Using Swedish health registries, we performed a nested case-control study with two control groups: sister controls and population controls. The study population included women with live singleton births between 1973 and 2010, who also had a full sister who gave birth during this period. All women subsequently diagnosed with PBC were selected as cases (n = 8327). Sisters with the least age difference and without PBC at the time of her sister's diagnosis were selected as sister controls. For each incident case, one population control without previous PBC was selected.The population controls were individually matched with the sister controls on year of birth. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations between reproductive factors and PBC. RESULTS: Increasing parity was inversely associated with PBC using population controls, and multiparity was a risk factor using sister controls. Very preterm delivery (≤ 31 weeks) was associated with a slightly higher PBC risk using sister controls. Preeclampsia was associated with a slightly protective effect using population controls. With respect to other factors, there were no substantial differences in risks of PBC by choice of control group. CONCLUSIONS: The divergent results with regard to parity and PBC risk when using sister and population controls suggest that the influence of childbearing may be modified by genotype. Selection bias when using different control groups must also be considered.
BACKGROUND: Reproductive factors are well-known risk factors for premenopausal breast cancer (PBC). It is unknown whether these associations are modified by familial factors, including genetic and early environment factors. METHODS: Using Swedish health registries, we performed a nested case-control study with two control groups: sister controls and population controls. The study population included women with live singleton births between 1973 and 2010, who also had a full sister who gave birth during this period. All women subsequently diagnosed with PBC were selected as cases (n = 8327). Sisters with the least age difference and without PBC at the time of her sister's diagnosis were selected as sister controls. For each incident case, one population control without previous PBC was selected.The population controls were individually matched with the sister controls on year of birth. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations between reproductive factors and PBC. RESULTS: Increasing parity was inversely associated with PBC using population controls, and multiparity was a risk factor using sister controls. Very preterm delivery (≤ 31 weeks) was associated with a slightly higher PBC risk using sister controls. Preeclampsia was associated with a slightly protective effect using population controls. With respect to other factors, there were no substantial differences in risks of PBC by choice of control group. CONCLUSIONS: The divergent results with regard to parity and PBC risk when using sister and population controls suggest that the influence of childbearing may be modified by genotype. Selection bias when using different control groups must also be considered.
Authors: Darren R Brenner; Yibing Ruan; Eileen Shaw; Dylan O'Sullivan; Abbey E Poirier; Emily Heer; Paul J Villeneuve; Stephen D Walter; Christine M Friedenreich; Leah Smith; Prithwish De Journal: CMAJ Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kimberly A Bertrand; Katie M O'Brien; Lauren B Wright; Julie R Palmer; William J Blot; A Heather Eliassen; Lynn Rosenberg; Sven Sandin; Deirdre Tobias; Elisabete Weiderpass; Wei Zheng; Anthony J Swerdlow; Minouk J Schoemaker; Hazel B Nichols; Dale P Sandler Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Kimberly A Bertrand; Katie M O'Brien; Lauren B Wright; Julie R Palmer; William J Blot; A Heather Eliassen; Lynn Rosenberg; Sven Sandin; Deirdre Tobias; Elisabete Weiderpass; Wei Zheng; Anthony J Swerdlow; Minouk J Schoemaker; Hazel B Nichols; Dale P Sandler Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 9.685
Authors: Mandy Goldberg; Mary V Díaz-Santana; Katie M O'Brien; Shanshan Zhao; Clarice R Weinberg; Dale P Sandler Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Zahna Bigham; Yvonne Robles; Karen M Freund; Julie R Palmer; Kimberly A Bertrand Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Denis R Whelan; Dale P Sandler; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lauren B Wright; Minouk J Schoemaker; Michael E Jones; Alan Ashworth; Anthony J Swerdlow Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 7.396