This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rinaldi, S. Articles by Toniolo, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rinaldi, S. Articles by Toniolo, P. Related Collections Risk Assessment Risk Assessment: Biomarkers

Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I, IGF Binding Protein-3, and Breast Cancer in Young Women: A Comparison of Risk Estimates Using Different Peptide Assays

¹ IARC, Lyon, France; Departments of ² Environmental Medicine and ³ Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; ⁴ Department of Urology and Andrology, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden

Requests for reprints: Rudolf Kaaks, Nutrition and Hormones Group, IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France. Phone: 347-273-8553; Fax: 347-273-8361. E-mail: kaaks{at}iarc.fr

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Circulating insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and its major binding protein IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) have been associated with increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, although risk estimates varied broadly. An extension of a case-control study (138 cases, 259 matched controls) on IGF-I and breast cancer in premenopausal women nested in the New York University Women's Health Study cohort offered the opportunity to address the hypothesis that such variability may have been the result of variations in the ability of different IGFBP-3 assays to specifically measure intact/functional forms of the protein. IGF-I and IGFBP-3 had originally been measured using in-house RIAs. These measurements were repeated using commercially available ELISAs [Diagnostic System Laboratories (DSL), Webster, Texas], and a third ELISA with greater specificity for active forms for IGFBP-3. Pearson's correlations between IGF-I concentrations in the original study and DSL ELISA were very high [r = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94]. Correlations with DSL ELISA were much lower for IGFBP-3 (r = 0.58; 0.49-0.66) and even lower still with the assay for functional IGFBP-3 (r = 0.33; 0.20-0.44). IGF-I and IGFBP-3 measurements by the DSL ELISA methods showed statistically significant relationships with risk. The odds ratios (OR) for top versus bottom quartiles were 1.93 (1.00-3.72; P = 0.02) and 2.03 (1.09-3.76; P = 0.02), respectively, in agreement with the original observations. In contrast, measurements of functional IGFBP-3 tended to be unrelated to risk [ORs for the top versus bottom quartile, 0.97 (0.44-2.11)]. The association with IGF-I became substantially weaker and lost statistical significance after adjustment for IGFBP-3 using DSL ELISA, but became considerably stronger when adjusting for the functional IGFBP-3 measurements [OR = 2.43 (1.21-4.90); P = 0.005], or when considering the molar ratio of IGF-I to IGFBP-3 [OR = 2.37 (1.13-5.00); P = 0.02]. These results are consistent with an association of breast cancer risk in young women with elevated IGF-I and IGFBP-3, and show that for IGFBP-3, the strength of such an association could vary substantially depending on the assay used.

Key Words: Premenopausal breast cancer • IGF-I • IGFBP-3 • Cohort studies • assay methods

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Recently, several prospective cohort studies (1-4) and case-control studies (5-8) have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women with elevated blood concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), a mitogenic and antiapoptotic protein. The increase in risk seemed to be most pronounced in premenopausal women who developed breast cancer before the age of 50 (1, 2). Because of the small sample size, the risk estimates observed in these studies had wide CI, and were also noticeably heterogeneous (1-3), with one prospective study (9) showing no association.

Heterogeneity of risk estimates was more pronounced for IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), the major binding protein of IGF-I in blood, than for IGF-I itself. Some studies showed a direct relationship of risk with IGFBP-3 concentrations (2-4), whereas others showed either a protective effect (1), or no association at all (9). Such heterogeneity, and the positive correlations between IGFBP-3 and IGF-I, resulted in a broadly variable effect of adjustments for IGFBP-3 on the reported associations between IGF-I and risk of breast cancer. In one study (1), IGFBP-3 adjustment resulted in a considerable increase in risk estimates, although in others (2-4), the same adjustment did not strengthen, but weakened the associations. A similar discrepancy has been noted in studies of cancers of the large intestine (10, 11) and prostate (12, 13).

We previously speculated that the observed between-study heterogeneity in relation to IGFBP-3 might be the result of differences in assay specificity. IGFBP-3 in blood undergoes specific proteolytic cleavage, and therefore, different analytic methods may measure, more or less intact, biologically active forms of IGFBP-3 (14). A case-control study of serum IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and risk of breast cancer in young women, nested within the New York University Women's Health Study cohort, offered the opportunity to address the hypothesis that the observed heterogeneity in IGF-I, and especially in IGFBP-3, may have been the result, in part, of variations in the ability of different assays used in different studies to measure these proteins with a comparable degree of specificity.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Subjects.This case-control study was nested within the New York University Women's Health Study and has been described in detail previously (2). About 86% of the women were non-Hispanic Whites, 6% Black, 6% Hispanic, and 2% from other ethnic backgrounds.

Case subjects were women who were premenopausal at the time of the baseline blood drawing (at cohort recruitment), who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer before age 51, at least 6 months after the baseline blood collection, and had no previous diagnosis of cancer except possibly nonmelanoma skin cancer. Women who reported the use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy in the 6 months prior to enrollment were not included in the cohort. Control subjects were chosen from all cohort subjects who were alive and free of cancer at the date of diagnosis of the index case subject, using an incidence density sampling method. The control subjects were matched individually to the cases according to age at recruitment (±3 months), menopausal status and date of baseline blood sampling (±3 months). In the original case-control study, four controls per case were selected (2). Because of the high cost of the laboratory analyses, in the present study, we randomly selected two controls out of the original four, and selected two controls for each newly diagnosed case.

A total of 138 eligible premenopausal cases and 259 controls were identified and included in this study (Table 1). The Ethical Review Boards of the New York University School of Medicine and the IARC, in Lyon, France, reviewed and approved the present study.

For quality control, three serum samples were measured in duplicate in each batch. For each peptide, the overall intrabatch coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated as the average CV of the duplicate measurements in each batch for the three different serum samples. The overall inter-batch CV was calculated for the three different quality control samples as the average interbatch CV for the means of each of the duplicate measurements. For the DSL ELISA, mean intrabatch and interbatch CV were 6.3% and 8.3%, and 7.2% and 13.9% for IGF-I and IGFBP-3, respectively. For the functional IGFBP-3 assay, the mean intrabatch and interbatch CV were 10.1% and 21.4%, respectively.

As in the original study, samples from all case subjects and their matched controls were analyzed on the same day for each assay kit. Laboratory personnel were not able to distinguish between case and control samples.

Statistical Analysis.Peptide hormone data were ln-transformed to reduce departures from the normal distribution. A pairwise t test was used to test for mean differences between subjects' characteristics and hormone levels for cases and matched controls. Pearson partial correlations between IGF-I and IGFBP-3 adjusted for batch and case-control status were calculated. Intraclass correlations between repeated hormone measurements were calculated from variance components estimated by the SAS MIXED procedure (17) and their 95% CI were calculated as previously described (18).

Odds ratios (OR) for disease by quartile levels of the hormone variables, and on a continuous scale, were estimated by conditional logistic regression models using the SAS PHREG procedure. The quartile cutoff points were based on the distribution of analyte values using the cases and controls combined. For the calculation on a continuous scale, hormones were log₂-transformed, so that a unit increase on the scale would represent a doubling of hormone concentrations. Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess linear trends in ORs over the quartiles, scoring the categories according to the median of the ln-transformed value for each quartile. Adjustments for benign breast disease, body mass index (BMI), family history of breast cancer and age at menarche in logistic regression models altered the OR estimates only trivially, therefore, unadjusted estimates are reported. All statistical tests and corresponding P values were two-sided, and P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
In the extended study, cases reported a family history of breast cancer [OR: 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.5)] and benign breast disease [OR: 3.1 (1.7-5.6)] more frequently than the controls. No case-control differences were observed for age at menarche (12.3 for cases versus 12.4 for controls), age at first full-term pregnancy (26.9 years versus 25.6), number of children (2.1 for cases and controls), and for having been pregnant (52.9% versus 58.3%). Patients with breast cancer were slightly leaner than controls (body mass index, 22.9 versus 23.8; P = 0.01).

We first assessed the agreement of the various assay techniques with each other. The DSL ELISA assays for IGF-I and IGFBP-3 yielded higher absolute values than those in the original study (P < 0.001; ref. 2). The Pearson correlation between DSL ELISA and original assays was high for IGF-I [r = 0.92 (0.90-0.94)], but much lower for IGFBP-3 [r = 0. 58 (0.49-0.66)]. The assay for functional IGFBP-3 resulted in lower mean values than those obtained by DSL ELISA or the original study, and the corresponding correlations were both weak [0.45 (0.34-0.55) and 0.33 (0.20-0.44), respectively]. For a subgroup of 111 study subjects (36 cases and 75 controls) serum samples were available in addition to those at baseline, and were collected between 9 and 65 months (average, 26 months) after the baseline blood collection. The relevant intraclass correlations for DSL ELISA measurements were relatively high for both IGF-I [0.81 (0.75-0.88)] and IGFBP-3 [0.87 (0.83-0.92)], thus suggesting that intraindividual variations in analyte concentrations were not a major factor.

As shown in Table 1, in the extended study, mean IGF-I and IGFBP-3 concentrations obtained with the DSL ELISA were 5.1% and 4.7% higher, respectively, among cases than among controls. In logistic regression analyses (Table 2), the ORs of breast cancer for elevated levels of both peptides indicated an average doubling in breast cancer risk: for IGF-I, the top versus bottom quartile OR = 1.93 (1.00-3.72, P = 0.02), and a doubling of IGF-I levels yielded an OR = 1.98 (1.12-3.50); and for IGFBP-3, the top versus bottom quartile OR = 2.03 (1.09-3.76, P = 0.02), and a doubling of IGFBP-3 levels gave an OR = 2.22 (1.08-4.53). The DSL ELISA assays of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were highly correlated [r = 0.66 (0.59-0.71)] so that adjustment of one hormone for the other did not modify their associations with risk. The molar ratio of IGF-I/IGFBP-3 when using DSL ELISA measurements also showed no relationship with breast cancer risk.

For comparison with the original study results (Table 3), we re-calculated the breast cancer ORs for the subgroup of cases and controls that were part of it. IGF-I was associated with increased breast cancer risk only when the original measurements were used [top versus lowest quartile OR = 2.22 (0.94-5.25); P = 0.03]. With the DSL ELISA, the OR was substantially lower [1.65 (0.69-3.99)] and was of borderline significance. IGFBP-3 was associated with an increase in risk when either the original measurements or the DSL ELISA method were used. With the assay for functional IGFBP-3, there was no longer any evidence of a positive association, as the ORs for the two upper quartiles fell below unity. Adjustment of IGF-I for IGFBP-3 showed a significant increase in risk only when IGF-I measurements (both original method and DSL ELISA) were adjusted with the functional IGFBP-3 measurements [top versus lowest quartile OR = 2.99 (1.19-7.51), P = 0.01 when IGF-I was measured by the original method, and OR =2.37 (0.92-6.07) p=0.02 when IGF-I was measured by DSL ELISA]. The IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratios were statistically associated with an increase in breast cancer risk only when the functional IGFBP-3 concentrations were considered [top versus lowest quartile OR 2.34 (0. 92-5.96), P = 0.03, when IGF-I was measured by original method, and OR 3.72 (1.44-9.63), P = 0.01, when using DSL ELISA IGF-I measurements]. With any other combination of measurements, the ORs were appreciably lower and the trends not significant.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

In the extended data set, the risks observed for IGF-I concentrations confirmed our previous findings (2), where a significant increase in breast cancer risk with increasing IGF-I serum concentrations was found (OR, 2.30; top versus bottom quartile). These data suggest a role for IGF-I in breast cancer etiology, which seems to be associated with a relatively early onset of the disease.

IGFBP-3 has been found to reduce cancer risk in several previous studies where this binding protein was measured by DSL ELISA. This was the case for studies on breast cancer in young women (1), as well as on prostate (12, 19) and colorectal cancers (10). In each of these studies, the association of IGF-I with cancer risk became stronger after adjustment for IGFBP-3 levels. A physiologic explanation for the stronger association of cancer risk with IGF-I adjusted for binding capacity to IGFBP-3 could be that levels of IGF-I relative to this IGFBP-3 may reflect more accurately a fraction of IGF-I that is more directly available to target tissues, where IGF-I acts as a mitogenic and antiapoptotic agent. In several other studies where IGFBP-3 was measured by assays different from DSL ELISA, elevated IGFBP-3 tended to be associated with an increase rather than a decrease in cancer risk (2, 13). We had suggested that such inconsistencies in the relationship between IGFBP-3 and cancer risk may reflect differences in assay specificity (14). IGFBP-3 exists in a variety of phosphorylated and glycosylated forms (20, 21) and undergoes proteolytic cleavage by specific proteases. More or less intact forms of IGFBP-3 and IGFBP-3 fragments can be found in blood circulation (22). IGFBP-3 proteolysis is increased during pregnancy, diabetes, severe illness (20, 23, 24), and also in patients with cancers of the breast and prostate (8, 25). These observations previously led us to speculate (14) that subjects at increased cancer risk might have increased hepatic synthesis and blood levels of IGFBP-3, possibly as a reflection of altered circulating growth hormone, although they may have lower levels of intact (uncleaved) forms of IGFBP-3, and higher proteolysis (26). Thus, it was possible that the DSL ELISA method would measure mostly specific intact forms of IGFBP-3, whereas other assays, commercialized for measurements of total IGFBP-3, might detect more or different forms combined.

In contrast to our expectations and to several previous studies, however, breast cancer risk was not inversely related to IGFBP-3 measured by DSL ELISA, on the contrary, an increase in risk was observed with increasing IGFBP-3 concentrations measured by DSL ELISA. Given this direct association with risk and the positive association of DSL-IGFBP-3 with DSL IGF-I, a multivariate adjustment for DSL-IGFBP-3 tended to weaken the observed association of breast cancer risk with IGF-I. We do not have a clear explanation as to why the relationship of cancer risk with DSL ELISA measurements of IGFBP-3 should be different from those observed in previous studies. There are, however, indications that the performance of the assay has changed over time. The IGFBP-3 standard used for the ELISA assay has been changed from a purified glycosylated to a recombinant nonglycosylated standard. It is possible that the binding to antibodies differs between the pure recombinant IGFBP-3 protein currently used to prepare the standards, and the mixture of the glycosylated, phosphorylated, and proteolysed IGFBP-3 forms found in biological (blood) samples (22, 24, 27, 28).

Measurements of functional IGFBP-3 showed modest and statistically insignificant inverse relationships with risk. Adjustments for Immunological and Biochemical Test systems' measurements of IGFBP-3, and the IGF-I/functional IGFBP-3 molar ratios, resulted in a much stronger and statistically significant trend of breast cancer risk with IGF-I levels, and risk was also directly related to the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio. Although the assay commercialized by Immunological and Biochemical Test systems indeed seems very promising, in our hands, this assay showed relatively high intrabatch and interbatch CVs. Its applicability to large-scale epidemiologic study therefore needs further confirmation in other studies. Moreover, it is not entirely clear what the functional assay measures that is distinct from other assays because the current evidence indicates that, other than in renal failure, all of the IGFBP-3 forms that are present in the circulation are functional in terms of binding to IGFs, and any forms of IGFBP-3 which do not bind to IGFs are very rapidly cleared from the circulation.

In conclusion, our study is compatible with previous observations of an increased risk of breast cancer among young women with elevated blood levels of IGF-I, although it also indicates that the biochemical assays used for the easurement of IGFBP-3 may lead to rather different conclusions. Taken together, our results stress the need for further, larger prospective studies on IGF-I and breast cancer risk among young women, and underline the need for careful studies on the specificity particularly of IGFBP-3 assays used in epidemiologic studies.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank Yelena Afanasyeva, Lynne Quinones, and Daniela Masciangelo for technical assistance in the NYU Women's Health Study; DavidAchaintre, and Béatrice Vozar for their competent work in the laboratory, Carine Biessy for help in statistical analyses, and Jennie Dehedin for secretarial help. We thank the reviewers for their very thorough comments.

	Footnotes

 
Grant support: Department of Health and Human Services grants R01 CA81188, R01 CA34588, P30 CA016087, and P30 ES00260.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 3/22/04; revised 8/31/04; accepted .

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 1998;351:1393–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Toniolo P, Bruning PF, Akhmedkhanov A, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I and breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2000;88:828–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Muti P, Quattrin T, Grant BJ, et al. Fasting glucose is a risk factor for breast cancer: a prospective study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1361–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Krajcik RA, Borofsky ND, Massardo S, Orentreich N. Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), IGF-binding proteins, and breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1566–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Del Giudice ME, Fantus IG, Ezzat S, McKeown-Eyssen G, Page D, Goodwin PJ. Insulin and related factors in premenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;47:111–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Peyrat JP, Bonneterre J, Hecquet B, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentrations in human breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:492–7.
7. Bruning PF, Van Doorn J, Bonfrer JM, et al. Insulin-like growth-factor-binding protein 3 is decreased in early-stage operable pre-menopausal breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1995;62:266–70.[Medline]
8. Yu H, Jin F, Shu XO, et al. Insulin-like growth factors and breast cancer risk in Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:705–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Kaaks R, Lundin E, Rinaldi S, et al. Prospective study of IGF-I, IGF-binding proteins, and breast cancer risk, in northern and southern Sweden. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:307–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Ma J, Pollak MN, Giovannucci E, et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein-3. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:620–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Kaaks R, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, et al. Serum C-peptide, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF-binding proteins, and colorectal cancer risk in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1592–600.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science 1998;279:563–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Stattin P, Bylund A, Rinaldi S, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I, insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins, and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1910–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Kaaks R, Rinaldi S, Lukanova A, Akhmedkhanov A, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Toniolo P. Correspondence re: Giovannucci et al., A prospective study of plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal neoplasia in women (in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:345–9). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:1103–4.[Free Full Text]
15. Silbergeld A, Litwin A, Bruchis S, Varsano I, Laron Z. Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in healthy children, adolescents and adults as determined by a radioimmunoassay specific for the synthetic 53–70 peptide region. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1986;25:67–74.[Medline]
16. Baxter RC, Martin JL. Radioimmunoassay of growth hormone-dependent insulinlike growth factor binding protein in human plasma. J Clin Invest 1986;78:1504–12.
17. SAS Institute. SAS/STATR User's Guide Version 6. SAS Manual 4(6). Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc. 1990.
18. Giraudeau B, Mary JY. Planning a reproducibility study: how many subjects and how many replicates per subject for an expected width of the 95 per cent confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Stat Med 2001;20:3205–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and IGF binding protein-3 as predictors of advanced-stage prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1099–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Rechler MM. Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins. Vitam Horm 1993;47:1–114.[Medline]
21. Holly JM, Martin JL. Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins: a review of methodological aspects of their purification, analysis and regulation. Growth Regul 1994;4:20–30.
22. Lassarre C, Binoux M. Measurement of intact insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 in human plasma using a ligand functional assay. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:1260–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Hossenlopp P, Segovia B, Lassarre C, Roghani M, Bredon M, BinouxM. Evidence of enzymatic degradation of insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins in the 150K complex during pregnancy. JClinEndocrinol Metab 1990;71:797–805.
24. Diamandi A, Mistry J, Krishna RG, Khosravi J. Immunoassay of insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3): new means to quantifying IGFBP-3 proteolysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:2327–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Shi R, Berkel HJ, Yu H. Insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2001;85:991–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Helle SI, Geisler S, Aas T, Paulsen T, Holly JM, Lonning PE. Plasma insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 proteolysis is increased in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2001;85:74–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Blum WF, Breier BH. Radioimmunoassays for IGFs and IGFBPs. Growth Regul 1994;4:11–9.
28. Gargosky SE, Pham HM, Wilson KF, Liu F, Giudice LC, RosenfeldRG. Measurement and characterization of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 in human biological fluids: discrepancies between radioimmunoassay and ligand blotting. Endocrinology 1992;131:3051–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. W. Roddam, N. E. Allen, P. Appleby, T. J. Key, L. Ferrucci, H. B. Carter, E. J. Metter, C. Chen, N. S. Weiss, A. Fitzpatrick, et al. Insulin-like Growth Factors, Their Binding Proteins, and Prostate Cancer Risk: Analysis of Individual Patient Data from 12 Prospective Studies Ann Intern Med, October 7, 2008; 149(7): 461 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. M. Chia, S. M. Quraishi, B. I. Graubard, M. V. Rubertone, R. L. Erickson, F. Z. Stanczyk, and K. A. McGlynn Insulin-like Growth Factor 1, Insulin-like Growth Factor-Binding Protein 3, and Testicular Germ-Cell Tumor Risk Am. J. Epidemiol., June 15, 2008; 167(12): 1438 - 1445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Siahpush, T. L. Vaughan, J. N. Lampe, R. Freeman, S. Lewis, R. D. Odze, P. L. Blount, K. Ayub, P. S. Rabinovitch, B. J. Reid, et al. Longitudinal Study of Insulin-like Growth Factor, Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein-3, and their Polymorphisms: Risk of Neoplastic Progression in Barrett's Esophagus Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2007; 16(11): 2387 - 2395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sieri, V. Pala, F. Brighenti, N. Pellegrini, P. Muti, A. Micheli, A. Evangelista, S. Grioni, P. Contiero, F. Berrino, et al. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, October 1, 2007; 86(4): 1160 - 1166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S Schernhammer, S. S Tworoger, A H. Eliassen, S. A Missmer, J. M Holly, M. N Pollak, and S. E Hankinson Body shape throughout life and correlations with IGFs and GH Endocr. Relat. Cancer, September 1, 2007; 14(3): 721 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. E. Allen, T. J. Key, P. N. Appleby, R. C. Travis, A. W. Roddam, S. Rinaldi, L. Egevad, S. Rohrmann, J. Linseisen, T. Pischon, et al. Serum Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF)-I and IGF-Binding Protein-3 Concentrations and Prostate Cancer Risk: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2007; 16(6): 1121 - 1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Berrigan, N. Potischman, K. W. Dodd, M. Nicar, G. McQuillan, J. A. Lavigne, J. C. Barrett, and R. Ballard-Barbash Serum Levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I and Insulin-like Growth Factor-I Binding Protein-3: Quality Control for Studies of Stored Serum Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2007; 16(5): 1017 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Baglietto, D. R. English, J. L. Hopper, H. A. Morris, W. D. Tilley, and G. G. Giles Circulating Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Binding Protein-3 and the Risk of Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2007; 16(4): 763 - 768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Pazaitou-Panayiotou, T. Kelesidis, I. Kelesidis, A. Kaprara, J. Blakeman, I. Vainas, A. Mpousoulegas, C. J Williams, and C. Mantzoros Growth hormone-binding protein is directly and IGFBP-3 is inversely associated with risk of female breast cancer Eur. J. Endocrinol., February 1, 2007; 156(2): 187 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. G Renehan, M. Harvie, and A. Howell Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and breast cancer risk: eight years on. Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2006; 13(2): 273 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S Schernhammer, J. M Holly, D. J Hunter, M. N Pollak, and S. E Hankinson Insulin-like growth factor-I, its binding proteins (IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-3), and growth hormone and breast cancer risk in The Nurses Health Study II. Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2006; 13(2): 583 - 592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Rinaldi, P H M Peeters, F Berrino, L Dossus, C Biessy, A Olsen, A Tjonneland, K Overvad, F Clavel-Chapelon, M C Boutron-Ruault, et al. IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and breast cancer risk in women: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2006; 13(2): 593 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. dos Santos Silva, N. Johnson, B. De Stavola, G. Torres-Mejia, O. Fletcher, D. S. Allen, N. E. Allen, T. J. Key, I. S. Fentiman, J. M.P. Holly, et al. The insulin-like growth factor system and mammographic features in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2006; 15(3): 449 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Al-Zahrani, M. S. Sandhu, R. N. Luben, D. Thompson, C. Baynes, K. A. Pooley, C. Luccarini, H. Munday, B. Perkins, P. Smith, et al. IGF1 and IGFBP3 tagging polymorphisms are associated with circulating levels of IGF1, IGFBP3 and risk of breast cancer Hum. Mol. Genet., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Renehan Insulin-Like Growth Factor-Binding Protein-3, Breast Cancer Risk, and Different Serum Assays Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2005; 14(7): 1844 - 1844. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rinaldi, S. Articles by Toniolo, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rinaldi, S. Articles by Toniolo, P. Related Collections Risk Assessment Risk Assessment: Biomarkers