| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Review |
1 Department of Epidemiology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute; 2 Department of Psychology, VA Western New York Healthcare System; 3 Department of Biostatistics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York and 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island
Requests for reprints: Kirsten B. Moysich, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263. Phone: 716-845-8004; Fax: 716-845-8487. E-mail: kirsten.moysich{at}roswellpark.org
Prescription and over-the-counter medications are widely used in the United States and many western countries. More than two-thirds of women ages >45 years, who are at greatest risk for breast cancer, take prescription medication. In light of the ubiquitous nature of medication use and the fact that breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women, research on the role of medication use in breast cancer etiology is warranted. We summarize the epidemiologic evidence on the association between breast cancer risk and use of common medications, including antibiotics, antidepressants, statins, antihypertensives, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Overall, there is little evidence that would implicate the use of antibiotics, antidepressants, statins, and antihypertensives in the etiology of breast cancer. Although several prospective studies and a randomized low-dose aspirin chemoprevention trial have not shown lower risk of breast cancer among aspirin users, most studies that have examined the potential chemoprotective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have shown significant risk reductions for regular and prolonged use of these drugs. The existing literature on the role of medication use in breast carcinogenesis is complicated. Interpretation of the evidence is hampered due to major methodologic differences across studies, including exposure assessment, exposure classification, and adjustment for potential confounding variables. These differences largely stem from the fact that the majority of articles on this topic represent secondary data analyses from studies with inadequate information on exposure or confounders. Thus, future epidemiologic studies specifically designed to study these ubiquitous and biologically plausible exposures are warranted. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(7):1564–95)
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |