Inger T Gram1, Song-Yi Park2, Gertraud Maskarinec2, Lynne R Wilkens2, Christopher A Haiman3, Loïc Le Marchand2. 1. Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 2. Population Science in the Pacific, Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine if the smoking-related higher breast cancer risk was similar for the five race/ethnicity groups in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study and by oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor status. METHODS: From 1993 to 2013, we followed 67 313 women who were enrolled in the MEC study at 45-75 years of age. We identified breast cancer cases and tumour receptor status via linkage to the Hawaii and California Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program cancer registries through December 2013. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 16.7 years, we identified 4230 incident, invasive breast cancer cases. Compared with parous never smokers, parous ever smokers who had smoked more than 5 years before their first live childbirth had a higher risk of breast cancer overall of 31% (95% CI: 1.14-1.51). This higher risk was 51% (95% CI: 1.05-2.16) for African Americans, 66% (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) for Native Hawaiians, 42% (95% CI: 1.13-1.78) for Whites, 37% (95% CI: 1.17-1.61) for ER-positive (ER+) tumours and 33% (95% CI: 1.11-1.59) for PR+ tumours. No difference was suggested by racial/ethnic groups (Pheterogeneity = 0.15) or tumour receptor status (Pheterogeneity = 0.60 by ER status and 0.95 by PR status). CONCLUSIONS: We find that the higher breast cancer risk related to smoking is similar across racial/ethnic groups and by ER and PR status, indicating that breast cancer should be considered as a smoking-related cancer.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine if the smoking-related higher breast cancer risk was similar for the five race/ethnicity groups in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study and by oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor status. METHODS: From 1993 to 2013, we followed 67 313 women who were enrolled in the MEC study at 45-75 years of age. We identified breast cancer cases and tumour receptor status via linkage to the Hawaii and California Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program cancer registries through December 2013. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 16.7 years, we identified 4230 incident, invasive breast cancer cases. Compared with parous never smokers, parous ever smokers who had smoked more than 5 years before their first live childbirth had a higher risk of breast cancer overall of 31% (95% CI: 1.14-1.51). This higher risk was 51% (95% CI: 1.05-2.16) for African Americans, 66% (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) for Native Hawaiians, 42% (95% CI: 1.13-1.78) for Whites, 37% (95% CI: 1.17-1.61) for ER-positive (ER+) tumours and 33% (95% CI: 1.11-1.59) for PR+ tumours. No difference was suggested by racial/ethnic groups (Pheterogeneity = 0.15) or tumour receptor status (Pheterogeneity = 0.60 by ER status and 0.95 by PR status). CONCLUSIONS: We find that the higher breast cancer risk related to smoking is similar across racial/ethnic groups and by ER and PR status, indicating that breast cancer should be considered as a smoking-related cancer.
Authors: Kenneth C Johnson; Anthony B Miller; Neil E Collishaw; Julie R Palmer; S Katharine Hammond; Andrew G Salmon; Kenneth P Cantor; Mark D Miller; Norman F Boyd; John Millar; Fernand Turcotte Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Gary A Giovino; Sara A Mirza; Jonathan M Samet; Prakash C Gupta; Martin J Jarvis; Neeraj Bhala; Richard Peto; Witold Zatonski; Jason Hsia; Jeremy Morton; Krishna M Palipudi; Samira Asma Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S J Nyante; G L Gierach; C M Dallal; N D Freedman; Y Park; K N Danforth; A R Hollenbeck; L A Brinton Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Danja Sarink; Kami K White; Lenora W M Loo; Anna H Wu; Lynne R Wilkens; Loïc Le Marchand; Song-Yi Park; V Wendy Setiawan; Melissa A Merritt Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Inger T Gram; Song-Yi Park; Lynne R Wilkens; Loïc Le Marchand; Veronica Wendy Setiawan Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Anne S Reiner; Gordon P Watt; Esther M John; Charles F Lynch; Jennifer D Brooks; Lene Mellemkjær; John D Boice; Julia A Knight; Patrick Concannon; Susan A Smith; Xiaolin Liang; Meghan Woods; Roy Shore; Kathleen E Malone; Leslie Bernstein; Jonine L Bernstein Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Trygve Lofterød; Hanne Frydenberg; Vidar Flote; Anne Elise Eggen; Anne McTiernan; Elin S Mortensen; Lars A Akslen; Jon B Reitan; Tom Wilsgaard; Inger Thune Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Marta Hernández-García; Ana Molina-Barceló; Mercedes Vanaclocha-Espi; Óscar Zurriaga; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Nuria Aragonés; Pilar Amiano; Jone M Altzibar; Gemma Castaño-Vinyals; María Sala; María Ederra; Vicente Martín; Inés Gómez-Acebo; Carmen Vidal; Adonina Tardón; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Marina Pollán; Manolis Kogevinas; Dolores Salas Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Juliane Wunder; Daniela Pemp; Alexander Cecil; Maryam Mahdiani; René Hauptstein; Katja Schmalbach; Leo N Geppert; Katja Ickstadt; Harald L Esch; Thomas Dandekar; Leane Lehmann Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 5.153