Evan L Busch1, Eric A Whitsel2, Candyce H Kroenke3, Yang C Yang4. 1. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, 181 Longwood Avenue, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7435, USA. Electronic address: nhebu@channing.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7435, USA; Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: eric_whitsel@med.unc.edu. 3. Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Division of Research, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, CA, 94612 USA. Electronic address: candyce.h.kroenke@kp.org. 4. Department of Sociology and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 308 W. Rosemary Street, Room #219, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: yangy@email.unc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous research has reported associations between social relationships and carcinogenesis. Inflammation is a potential mediator of these associations. To clarify these links for one tumor site, we examined associations between social relationships, circulating inflammation markers, and breast cancer incidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 132,262 participants from the prospective Women's Health Initiative, we used linear and logistic regression to evaluate associations between social relationship characteristics (social support, social strain, social network size) and inflammation markers of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC). Cox regression was used to evaluate associations between inflammation markers and breast cancer incidence, as well as associations between social relationship characteristics and breast cancer incidence with and without adjustment for inflammation markers. RESULTS: Larger social networks were associated with lower continuous CRP (beta = -0.22, 95% CI -0.36, -0.08) and WBC (beta = -0.23, 95% CI -0.31, -0.16). Greater social strain was associated with higher continuous CRP (beta = 0.24, 95% CI 0.14, 0.33) and WBC (beta = 0.09, 95% CI 0.04, 0.14). When WBC was dichotomized at 10,000 cells/uL, high WBC was associated with greater hazards of in situ breast cancer (HR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.17, 2.33) but not invasive breast cancer. Social relationship characteristics were not associated with incidence of invasive or in situ breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Larger social networks were associated with lower inflammation and greater social strain was associated with higher inflammation. Higher inflammation might be associated with development of in situ breast cancer, but this appeared to be due to factors other than social relationships.
OBJECTIVES: Previous research has reported associations between social relationships and carcinogenesis. Inflammation is a potential mediator of these associations. To clarify these links for one tumor site, we examined associations between social relationships, circulating inflammation markers, and breast cancer incidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 132,262 participants from the prospective Women's Health Initiative, we used linear and logistic regression to evaluate associations between social relationship characteristics (social support, social strain, social network size) and inflammation markers of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC). Cox regression was used to evaluate associations between inflammation markers and breast cancer incidence, as well as associations between social relationship characteristics and breast cancer incidence with and without adjustment for inflammation markers. RESULTS: Larger social networks were associated with lower continuous CRP (beta = -0.22, 95% CI -0.36, -0.08) and WBC (beta = -0.23, 95% CI -0.31, -0.16). Greater social strain was associated with higher continuous CRP (beta = 0.24, 95% CI 0.14, 0.33) and WBC (beta = 0.09, 95% CI 0.04, 0.14). When WBC was dichotomized at 10,000 cells/uL, high WBC was associated with greater hazards of in situ breast cancer (HR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.17, 2.33) but not invasive breast cancer. Social relationship characteristics were not associated with incidence of invasive or in situ breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Larger social networks were associated with lower inflammation and greater social strain was associated with higher inflammation. Higher inflammation might be associated with development of in situ breast cancer, but this appeared to be due to factors other than social relationships.
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: Candyce H Kroenke; Marilyn L Kwan; Alfred I Neugut; Isaac J Ergas; Jaime D Wright; Bette J Caan; Dawn Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Yvonne L Michael; Nichole E Carlson; Rowan T Chlebowski; Mikel Aickin; Karen L Weihs; Judith K Ockene; Deborah J Bowen; Cheryl Ritenbaugh Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Emily Vogtmann; Emily B Levitan; Lauren Hale; James M Shikany; Neomi A Shah; Yohannes Endeshaw; Cora E Lewis; Joann E Manson; Rowan T Chlebowski Journal: Sleep Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Silvia Stringhini; Lisa Berkman; Aline Dugravot; Jane E Ferrie; Michael Marmot; Mika Kivimaki; Archana Singh-Manoux Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Electra D Paskett; Crystal W Cené; Bette J Caan; Juhua Luo; Aladdin H Shadyab; Jamaica R M Robinson; Rami Nassir; Dorothy S Lane; Garnet L Anderson Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marko Elovainio; Sonja Lumme; Martti Arffman; Kristiina Manderbacka; Eero Pukkala; Christian Hakulinen Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-06-11
Authors: Rebecca D Kehm; Jasmine A McDonald; Suzanne E Fenton; Marion Kavanaugh-Lynch; Karling Alice Leung; Katherine E McKenzie; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 4.614