Karin B Michels1,2,3, Barbara A Cohn4, Mandy Goldberg5, Julie D Flom5, Marcelle Dougan2, Mary Beth Terry5,6,7. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; kmichels@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Institute for Prevention and Cancer Epidemiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. The Center for Research on Women and Children's Health, The Child Health and Development Studies, Public Health Institute, Berkeley, California. 5. Department of Epidemiology, and. 6. The Imprints Center for Genetic and Environmental Lifecourse Studies, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York; and. 7. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relation between maternal anthropometry and mammographic density in the adult daughter using prospectively collected data. METHODS: Our study included a total of 700 mother-daughter dyads participating in an adult follow-up of women born in 2 US birth cohorts: the Child Health and Development Study and the Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island sites of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. RESULTS: We observed an increased percent breast density at a mean age of 43.1 years in the daughters of mothers who gained 5 kg or less during pregnancy compared with mother-daughter pairs in which the mother gained 5 to 10 kg (β = 4.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 8.6). The daughters of mothers who were overweight at the time of conception (prepregnancy BMI ≥25) and who gained >5 kg during pregnancy had a lower percent density (β = -3.2, 95% confidence interval: -6.2 to -0.2) compared with mothers with a BMI <25 at conception who gained >5 kg. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any strong and consistent patterns between maternal anthropometry and the daughter's breast density, a strong predictor of breast cancer risk. A modest association between low gestational weight gain and increased breast density 40 years later in the daughter was observed, even after accounting for adult body size, and if confirmed, possible mechanisms need to be further elucidated.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relation between maternal anthropometry and mammographic density in the adult daughter using prospectively collected data. METHODS: Our study included a total of 700 mother-daughter dyads participating in an adult follow-up of women born in 2 US birth cohorts: the Child Health and Development Study and the Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island sites of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. RESULTS: We observed an increased percent breast density at a mean age of 43.1 years in the daughters of mothers who gained 5 kg or less during pregnancy compared with mother-daughter pairs in which the mother gained 5 to 10 kg (β = 4.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 8.6). The daughters of mothers who were overweight at the time of conception (prepregnancy BMI ≥25) and who gained >5 kg during pregnancy had a lower percent density (β = -3.2, 95% confidence interval: -6.2 to -0.2) compared with mothers with a BMI <25 at conception who gained >5 kg. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any strong and consistent patterns between maternal anthropometry and the daughter's breast density, a strong predictor of breast cancer risk. A modest association between low gestational weight gain and increased breast density 40 years later in the daughter was observed, even after accounting for adult body size, and if confirmed, possible mechanisms need to be further elucidated.
Authors: E Susser; S Buka; C A Schaefer; H Andrews; P M Cirillo; P Factor-Litvak; M Gillman; J M Goldstein; P Ivey Henry; L H Lumey; I W McKeague; K B Michels; M B Terry; B A Cohn Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: K B Michels; D Trichopoulos; J M Robins; B A Rosner; J E Manson; D J Hunter; G A Colditz; S E Hankinson; F E Speizer; W C Willett Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-12-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M B Terry; C A Schaefer; J D Flom; Y Wei; P Tehranifar; Y Liao; S Buka; K B Michels Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: M Sanderson; M A Williams; J R Daling; V L Holt; K E Malone; S G Self; D E Moore Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Barbara A Cohn; Mandy Goldberg; Julie D Flom; Ying Wei; Lauren C Houghton; Parisa Tehranifar; Jasmine A McDonald; Angeline Protacio; Piera Cirillo; Karin B Michels Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ana López; María Luisa Garmendia; John Shepherd; Karin Michels; Camila Corvalán; Ana Pereira Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 4.379