CEBP Candidate Pathways, Whole Genome Scans: Reconciling Results, Looking into the Future Translational Cancer Medicine 2008: Cancer Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine
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 Cell Growth & Differentiation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow patientINFORMation
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Hoover, R. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Hoover, R. N.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 15, 1509-1514, August 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Prenatal Diethylstilbestrol Exposure and Risk of Breast Cancer

Julie R. Palmer1, Lauren A. Wise1, Elizabeth E. Hatch2, Rebecca Troisi3, Linda Titus-Ernstoff4, William Strohsnitter5, Raymond Kaufman6, Arthur L. Herbst7, Kenneth L. Noller5, Marianne Hyer8 and Robert N. Hoover3

1 Slone Epidemiology Center and 2 Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health; 3 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; 4 Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; 6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; 7 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; and 8 Information Management Services, Rockville, Maryland

Requests for reprints: Julie R. Palmer, Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, 1010 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215. Phone: 617-734-6006; Fax: 617-738-5119. E-mail: jpalmer{at}slone.bu.edu


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
It has been hypothesized that breast cancer risk is influenced by prenatal hormone levels. Diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, was widely used by pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s. Women who took the drug have an increased risk of breast cancer, but whether risk is also increased in the daughters who were exposed in utero is less clear. We assessed the relation of prenatal DES exposure to risk of breast cancer in a cohort of DES-exposed and unexposed women followed since the 1970s by mailed questionnaires. Eighty percent of both exposed and unexposed women completed the most recent questionnaire. Self-reports of breast cancer were confirmed by pathology reports. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compute incidence rate ratios (IRR) for prenatal DES exposure relative to no exposure. During follow-up, 102 incident cases of invasive breast cancer occurred, with 76 among DES-exposed women (98,591 person-years) and 26 among unexposed women (35,046 person-years). The overall age-adjusted IRR was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.89-2.22]. For breast cancer occurring at ages ≥40 years, the IRR was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09-3.33) and for cancers occurring at ages ≥50 years, it was 3.00 (95% CI, 1.01-8.98). Control for calendar year, parity, age at first birth, and other factors did not alter the results. These results, from the first prospective study on the subject, suggest that women with prenatal exposure to DES have an increased risk of breast cancer after age 40 years. The findings support the hypothesis that prenatal hormone levels influence breast cancer risk. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(8):1509–14)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Trichopoulos and Lipman (1) and Trichopoulos et al. (2) have hypothesized that in utero exposure to high levels of estrogens increases future risk of breast cancer by increasing the number of breast stem cells at birth and, therefore, the number at risk of malignant transformation. Epidemiologists have used factors such as birthweight (3-10), maternal preeclampsia (7, 8, 11), and twin pregnancy (4, 8, 12), which might be related to prenatal hormone levels, as surrogate exposure measures to assess the hypothesis. The results to date are inconclusive (13).

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is an orally active synthetic estrogen that was first synthesized in 1938 and frequently prescribed to pregnant women in the 1940s to 1960s (14). Early studies suggested that the drug might prevent spontaneous abortion (15), but later, better-controlled studies showed no benefit (16). Although no definitive data are available, reports using pharmacy records and complete review of sets of prenatal records suggest that at least 1 million and probably as many as 2 million women were exposed to the drug before birth (17).

In 1971, in utero exposure was found to be associated with a greatly increased risk of clear cell carcinoma of the vagina and cervix (18). Subsequently, DES use was found to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women who took the drug (19, 20), raising concerns about the possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer in daughters who were exposed in utero.

The DES tragedy offers a rare opportunity for a direct assessment of the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to high levels of estrogens increases future breast cancer risk. Simultaneously, such an investigation may provide important information on risk for those 1 to 2 million women who were exposed to DES. We previously reported that follow-up of a DES cohort showed little or no association between exposure and breast cancer risk overall (21). However, a statistically significant 2.5-fold risk was observed among women ages ≥40 years (21). At that time, most of the cohort was still young and the results were based on only 27 exposed and 7 unexposed cases occurring at ages ≥40 years. With an additional 4 to 5 years of follow-up, the total number of cases ages ≥40 years has more than doubled, allowing for a more definitive analysis.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study Participants
In 1992, an effort was made to assemble all extant U.S. cohorts of DES-exposed persons that had an appropriate comparison group of unexposed persons and had medical record documentation of exposure or nonexposure (19, 22, 23). As previously described (24), the existing cohorts of daughters identified were from (a) the National Cooperative Diethylstilbestrol Adenosis Project (DESAD; ref. 22), (b) a randomized clinical trial of DES carried out at the University of Chicago in 1951-1952 (Dieckmann; ref. 23), and (c) a large private infertility practice in Massachusetts (Horne). In addition, female offspring of women who had participated in a study of health effects in mothers (Women's Health Study; ref. 19) were identified in 1994 through review of written information that had been abstracted from the mothers' prenatal records in the 1970s and were invited to participate in the current study. Review of the mother's prenatal record provided documentation of exposure for all exposed participants.

The unexposed cohort for the current study comprised unexposed women from the same four cohorts that provided the exposed subjects. In the DESAD study, unexposed subjects were either sisters of exposed participants (24%) or nonrelatives identified from the same record sources as the exposed (76%), most of whom were matched to the exposed on year of birth and mother's age at delivery. Dieckmann study unexposed subjects were the daughters of trial participants who were randomized to receive a placebo rather than DES. Horne cohort unexposed were those daughters who had no record of exposure (in prenatal records) and who were also identified as unexposed in interviews with their mothers. Women's Health Study unexposed daughters were identified through review of the prenatal and obstetric records of participants in the Women's Health Study.

As shown in Table 1 , of the 7,439 daughters originally identified for inclusion in any of the four original cohorts, 549 were ineligible for the National Cancer Institute DES follow-up study for the following reasons: never located (n = 210), missing date of birth (n = 36), deceased before 1978 (n = 26), lost or refused before 1978 (n = 260), or cancer before entry in the study (n = 17). Therefore, a total of 4,817 exposed and 2,073 unexposed daughters comprised the cohort included in the National Cancer Institute study.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Participation in National Cancer Institute DES follow-up study

 
Follow-up
The start of follow-up was January 1, 1978 for all participants except those who were first enrolled in 1994/1995, for whom January 1, 1995 was taken as start of follow-up. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to participants in 1994, 1997, and 2001. The baseline questionnaire (1994) ascertained lifetime reproductive history, use of female hormones, cigarette smoking, alcohol intake, and body size; subsequent questionnaires updated information on reproductive and hormonal factors. Each questionnaire asked about occurrence of cancer and frequency of mammographic screening. The close of follow-up for the most recent questionnaire was June 2003, and that questionnaire was completed by 3,812 exposed daughters (80% of those still alive in 2001) and 1,637 unexposed daughters (also 80% of those still alive in 2001). A comparison of those who were and were not lost to follow-up since 1994 revealed no material differences with regard to breast cancer risk factors in both exposed and unexposed women (data not shown). Fifty-nine exposed and 18 unexposed women died during follow-up. The median age at start of follow-up was 24 years for exposed and 26 years for unexposed women, and the median number of years followed was 24 for exposed and 22 for unexposed. The majority of participants were from the DESAD study (68%), with 11% from the Dieckmann trial, 7% from the Horne cohort, and 14% from the Women's Health Study.

Incident cases of breast cancer were identified through self-reports on the study questionnaires. Searches of the National Death Index identified breast cancer in participants who had died or been lost to follow-up. Pathology reports, death certificates, or cause of death from National Death Index Plus were obtained for all but 10 of the reported cases of breast cancer. Review of these records confirmed the diagnosis of breast cancer in all but one instance, and that woman was excluded. Because the confirmation rate was high, participants whose records could not be obtained were included as cases. In total, there were 102 cases of incident invasive breast cancer. Data on exact date of diagnosis, histologic type, tumor size and spread, and estrogen and progesterone receptor status were abstracted from the pathology reports, which had been obtained for 87% of cases.

Approvals for the study were obtained from the human investigation committees at the five field centers and the National Cancer Institute. Participants indicated their informed consent by filling out and returning questionnaires or taking part in a telephone interview. Signed medical record releases were obtained for review of medical records.

Statistical Analysis
Person-years at risk were computed from the start of follow-up until the earliest of the following: date of breast cancer diagnosis, date of response to the most recent questionnaire, date of death, or date of last known follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression (25) was used to compute incidence rate ratios (IRR), with stratification on individual year of age. Parity, age at first birth, age at menarche, age at menopause, family history of breast cancer, use of oral contraceptives, use of female hormone supplements, calendar year at risk, years of education, cigarette smoking, birthweight, and body mass index were considered as potential confounders by examining models that controlled for age and each other variable separately and a model that included terms for all potential confounders. Parity, age at first birth, age at menopause, use of oral contraceptives, and use of female hormone supplements were treated as time-dependent covariates. None of the factors except age changed the IRRs by >10%. We estimated IRRs for the association of prenatal DES exposure with risk of invasive breast cancer overall, within age strata, and within strata of breast cancer risk factors. To examine whether the association between DES exposure and breast cancer was modified by other covariates (e.g., age, use of female hormones), we conducted likelihood ratio tests that compared models with and without cross-product terms between exposure and these covariates. Departure from the proportional hazards assumption was tested by the likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without cross-product terms between exposure and age (<40 versus 40+ years).

Data on gestational week of first use of DES were available for 75% of exposed women, permitting an analysis of timing of first use in relation to breast cancer risk. Cumulative dose of DES exposure was available for only 38% of exposed daughters. The study cohorts included women from several regions of the United States with varying DES prescribing practices. We characterized the various exposed cohorts as "high-dose" or "low-dose" based on knowledge about regional practices. Women from the University of Chicago randomized trial, from the Boston cohorts, and from the California cohort of the DESAD project were grouped together as a high-dose cohort. Among participants with complete information on cumulative dose, the median doses were 12,442, 8,675, and 7,550 mg for the Chicago, Boston, and California cohorts, respectively. Women from the Texas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin cohorts of the DESAD project were grouped together as a low-dose cohort. Among those whose cumulative dose was known, the median doses were 2,572, 1,520, and 3,175 mg for the Texas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin cohorts, respectively. Thus, the available dose data supported our classification of cohorts. Women's Health Study daughters who were not from Boston were excluded from this analysis due to a lack of information on usual DES prescribing practices for other regions.

Risk among the exposed was also compared with that of the general population. Expected numbers of cancers and standardized incidence ratios were calculated for the exposed cohort using cancer incidence rates for white women from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (26). The standardized incidence ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were computed assuming a Poisson distribution for the observed number of cancers (25).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Exposed and unexposed women were similar with regard to most factors, with a few exceptions (Table 2 ). Exposed women were younger, less likely to be parous, had an older age at first birth, had a lower birthweight, and were more educated than unexposed women.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Characteristics of study participants at baseline in 1994 by prenatal DES exposure

 
There were 98,591 person-years of follow-up among the exposed daughters and 35,046 person-years among the unexposed. Seventy-six cases of invasive breast cancer occurred among the exposed and 26 among the unexposed for an age-adjusted IRR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.89-2.22) comparing DES-exposed to unexposed women (Table 3 ). As shown in Fig. 1 , results differed by age: the IRR for women ages <40 years was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.27-1.38) whereas the IRR for ages ≥40 years was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.09-3.33), and the interaction was statistically significant (P = 0.03). There was a further increase for women ages ≥50 years, among whom the IRR was 3.00 (95% CI, 1.01-8.98), but this IRR was not statistically different from the IRR for ages 40 to 49 years. The IRRs from multivariable models were closely similar to those from the age-adjusted models, as shown in Table 3, and for the remaining analyses we present IRRs from age-adjusted models only. Comparison of exposed cases to those expected based on rates in the general population yielded a similar pattern by age, with standardized incidence ratios of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.57-1.52), 1.13 (95% CI, 0.84-1.50), and 1.77 (95% CI, 1.05-3.00) for ages <40, 40-49, and 50+ years, respectively. Because the breast cancer risk factor profiles for the exposed and unexposed cohorts are different from those of the general population, subsequent analyses were limited to IRRs. Furthermore, because there was a statistically significant age-interaction for ages <40 and ≥40 years, all further analyses were confined to women ages ≥40 years, among whom the majority of breast cancer cases (77 of 102) arose.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Prenatal DES exposure in relation to risk of invasive breast cancer

 

Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Cumulative hazard plots for prenatal DES exposure in relation to risk of breast cancer.

 
A positive association of prenatal DES exposure with risk of breast cancer in women ages ≥40 years was present across strata of important breast cancer risk factors (Table 4 ). The IRRs were 2.20 among premenopausal women and 1.87 among postmenopausal women. Among postmenopausal women ages ≥50 years, the IRR was 2.47 (95% CI, 0.80-7.61; data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Prenatal DES exposure in relation to risk of invasive breast cancer among women ages ≥40 years according to parity, family history of breast cancer, use of female hormone supplements, use of oral contraceptives, and menopausal status

 
As shown in Table 5 , the IRR for the low-dose exposure cohort relative to unexposed cohort was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.87-3.08) and the IRR for the high-dose cohort relative to unexposed cohort was 2.16 (95% CI, 1.18-3.96; Ptrend = 0.01).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Timing of first exposure to DES and characteristic dose of DES in relation to breast cancer among women ages ≥40 years

 
DES exposure that began before the 9th week of gestation was not associated with a greater increase of breast cancer risk in women ages ≥40 years than was exposure that began later in the pregnancy: the IRRs were 1.48 for the earliest exposure, 2.04 for exposure that began in the 9th to 12th week of pregnancy, and 2.01 for exposure that began after the first trimester.

The association of DES exposure with breast cancer was present for both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative tumors and for both progesterone receptor–positive and progesterone receptor–negative tumors (Table 6 ). Only three of the tumors with known histology did not have a ductal component, and therefore it was not possible to evaluate the association for other histologic types. The IRR was 1.64 (95% CI, 0.75-3.59) for tumors <2 cm in diameter and 3.25 (95% CI, 1.03-10.2) for larger tumors. IRRs for cases with no positive lymph nodes were similar to those for cases with one or more positive nodes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6. DES exposure in relation to risk of breast cancer among women ages ≥40 years according to tumor characteristics

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The present results suggest that prenatal exposure to DES may increase risk of breast cancer. DES-exposed women ages ≥40 years were estimated to have 1.9 times the risk of unexposed women of the same ages. For women ages ≥50 years, the estimated relative risk was even higher, but the relatively small number of cases makes the age gradient imprecise. The association was present within all strata of the breast cancer risk factors that were examined and did not differ by receptor status of the tumor, tumor size, or lymph node involvement. Furthermore, the highest relative risk was observed for the cohorts receiving the highest cumulative dose of DES exposure.

Our findings are consistent with those reports that have identified an increased risk in females exposed to intrauterine factors associated with altered hormone levels. These studies have not been consistent, but there have been a number of positive studies supporting a role for prenatal factors (13). The majority of studies of birthweight have found a positive association with breast cancer risk (3-6, 10). Birthweight has been positively correlated with maternal pregnancy estrogen levels (27-29) but not with cord levels (29). Dizygotic twin pregnancy, which is associated with higher levels of pregnancy estrogens (30, 31), has also been linked with increased breast cancer risk in the offspring, but less consistently (3, 8, 12). Daughters of preeclamptic pregnancies have a lower breast cancer risk (7, 8, 11). Whether this association is related to pregnancy hormone levels is unclear, however, because well-designed prospective studies have not found lower levels of estrogens either in the cord blood of preeclamptic births or in maternal serum (32-34). On the other hand, there is some evidence that testosterone levels (33, 34) and progesterone levels (32) may be higher in preeclamptic pregnancies. Experimental studies have examined the effects of neonatal DES exposure on the mammary glands of rodents: in a recent study of mice, DES exposure exerted long-lasting effects on proliferation and differentiation of the mammary glands (35), and in a study of rats, exposure led to an increased number of mammary tumors (36). One possible molecular mechanism for the association observed in our study is the mammary gland cell hypothesis (1, 2), which postulates that altered prenatal hormone exposure could lead to an increase in the total number of ductal stem cells at risk of carcinogenic stimulation.

Our finding of an increased relative risk with increased age at diagnosis was unexpected and warrants further investigation. We did not observe a positive association among women ages <40 years; in fact, the relative risk estimate was <1.0. However, we had limited power to detect an increased risk in younger women.

Because the unexposed cohort was slightly older than the exposed cohort, we adjusted for age by individual year. DES-exposed women typically have a later first birth and are more likely to be nulliparous, and both factors can increase breast cancer risk. We controlled for age at first birth and number of births in a time-dependent model and found that results were unchanged. Furthermore, an analysis restricted to nulliparous women, among whom there would not be confounding by parity, yielded results consistent with a positive association.

Standardized incidence ratios derived using general population incidence rates in U.S. white women indicated a similar, albeit weaker, association of prenatal DES exposure with breast cancer risk. Both the exposed and unexposed women in this study had breast cancer risk factor profiles that were different from those of the general population, with perhaps the most notable being a profoundly lower prevalence of overweight and obesity. Thus, we believe that the IRRs give the most unbiased estimates of the magnitude of the risks involved.

Selection bias is unlikely to explain the present findings. Eighty percent of both exposed and unexposed subjects were followed through the 2001 questionnaire cycle. In addition, nonrespondents were similar to respondents with respect to age, reproductive factors, body mass index, smoking, and other factors among both exposed and unexposed.

Information on DES exposure was ascertained from the mothers' prenatal records and was recorded before the beginning of follow-up for all subjects. Thus, nondifferential misclassification of exposure is extremely unlikely. The prevalence of mammography use was similar for the exposed and unexposed groups, suggesting that detection bias is an unlikely explanation for our findings. In addition, the positive association with DES exposure was present for tumors ≥2 cm in size, which would have been likely to come to diagnosis regardless of frequency of mammographic screening.

There are two important clinical implications of our results. First, DES-exposed women should be encouraged to adhere to breast cancer screening guidelines. Whereas we have observed that many exposed daughters have concerns about their cancer risks in general, many others fail to have mammograms at appropriate intervals, or at all. A second important consideration for DES-exposed women is whether to take female hormone supplements. Our findings indicate no statistical interaction between prenatal DES exposure and use of hormone supplements. However, we had limited power to detect an interaction. Because the commonly used female hormone supplements have been shown to independently increase risk of breast cancer (37), it might be wise for exposed women to avoid such supplements whenever possible.

In summary, the present findings suggest that women who were exposed to DES in utero have an increased risk of breast cancer at the ages at which breast cancer becomes more common. This is unwelcome news for the 1 to 2 million women who were prenatally exposed to DES, and underscores the need for regular screening for breast tumors. Although the relative risk is modest compared with the greatly increased risk of vaginal cancer associated with DES exposure, the number of cases attributable to DES exposure, if there is a true causal relation, will be substantially larger because breast cancer is a commonly occurring cancer. In addition, some have speculated that the effects of fetal exposure to pharmacologic hormonal levels may serve as sentinels for the subtle effects of less dramatic, but more prevalent, hormonal perturbations resulting from lifestyle or environmental exposures. The present results suggest that such environmental exposures may deserve more serious consideration.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute contracts N01-CP-21168, N01-CP-51017, and N01-CP-01289.

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 2/10/06; revised 5/30/06; accepted 6/15/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Trichopoulos D, Lipman R. Mammary gland mass and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 1992;3:523–6.[Medline]
  2. Trichopoulos D, Lagiou P, Adami H-O. The crucial role of the number of mammary tissue-specific stem cells. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:13–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Sanderson M, Williams M, Malone K, et al. Perinatal factors and risk of breast cancer. Epidemiology 1996;7:34–7.[Medline]
  4. Michels KB, Trichopoulos D, Robins JM, et al. Birth weight as a risk factor for breast cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1542–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Vatten LJ, Maehle BO, Lund Nilsen TI, et al. Birth weight as a predictor of breast cancer: a case-control study in Norway. Br J Cancer 2002;86:89–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Ahlgren M, Sorensen T, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Birth weight and risk of breast cancer in a cohort of 106,504 women. Int J Cancer 2003;107:997–1000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Innes K, Byers T, Schymura M. Birth characteristics and risk for breast cancer in very young women. Am J Epidemiol 2000;52:1121–8.
  8. Ekbom A, Hsieh CC, Lipworth L, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D. Intrauterine environment and breast cancer risk in women: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:71–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Sanderson M, Shu XO, Jin F, et al. Weight at birth and adolescence and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a low-risk population. Br J Cancer 2002;86:84–8.[Medline]
  10. Titus-Ernstoff L, Egan KM, Newcomb PA, et al. Early life factors in relation to breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:207–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Ekbom A, Trichopoulos D, Adami HO, Hsieh CC, Lan SJ. Evidence of prenatal influences on breast cancer risk. Lancet 1992;340:1015–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Weiss HA, Potischman NA, Brinton LA, et al. Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Epidemiology 1997;8:181–7.[Medline]
  13. Potischman N, Troisi R. In-utero and early life exposures in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:561–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Noller KL, Fish CR. Diethylstilbestrol usage: its interesting past, important present, and questionable future. Med Clin North Am 1974;58:739–810.
  15. Smith OW, Smith GV. The influence of diethylstilbestrol on the progress and outcome of pregnancy as based on a comparison of treated with untreated primigravidas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1949;58:994–1009.[Medline]
  16. Dieckmann WJ, Davis ME, Rynkiewicz SM, Pottinger RE. Does the administration of diethylstilbestrol during pregnancy have therapeutic value? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953;66:1062–75.[Medline]
  17. Heinonen OP. Diethylstilbestrol in pregnancy. Frequency of exposure and usage patterns. Cancer 1973;31:573–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Herbst AL, Ulfelder H, Poskanzer DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina: association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. N Engl J Med 1971;284:878–81.[Medline]
  19. Colton T, Greenberg ER, Noller K, et al. Breast cancer in mothers prescribed diethylstilbestrol in pregnancy. J Am Med Assoc 1993;269:2096–100.[Abstract]
  20. Greenberg ER, Barnes AB, Resseguie L, et al. Breast cancer in mothers given diethylstilbestrol in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1393–8.[Abstract]
  21. Palmer JR, Hatch EE, Rosenberg CL, et al. Risk of breast cancer in women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero: preliminary results (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:753–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Labarthe D, Adam E, Noller KL, et al. Design and preliminary observations of the National Cooperative Diethylstilbestrol Adenosis (DESAD) Project. Obstet Gynecol 1978;51:453–8.[Medline]
  23. Bibbo M, Gill WB, Azizi F, et al. Follow-up study of male and female offspring of DES-exposed mothers. Obstet Gynecol 1977;49:1–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Hatch EE, Palmer JR, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. Cancer risk in women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero. JAMA 1998;280:630–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, II: Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. IARC Scientific Publication 88. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987.
  26. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (http://www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 9 Regs Public Use, Nov 2003 Sub (1973-2001), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2004, based on the November 2003 submission.
  27. Mucci LA, Lagiou P, Tamini RM, Hsieh CC, Adami HO, Trichopoulos D. Pregnancy estriol, estradiol, progesterone and prolaction in relation to birth weight and other birth size variables (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:311–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Kaijser M, Granath F, Jacobsen G, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A. Maternal pregnancy estriol levels in relation to anamnestic and fetal anthropometric data. Epidemiology 2000;11:315–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Troisi R, Potischman N, Roberts J, et al. Associations of maternal and umbilical cord hormone concentrations with maternal, gestational and neonatal factors (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:347–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Duff GB, Brown JB. Urinary oestriol excretion in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol 1974;81:695–700.
  31. Trapp M, Kato K, Bohnet H-G, et al. Human placental lactogen and unconjugated estriol concentrations in twin pregnancies: monitoring of fetal development in intrauterine growth retardation and single intrauterine fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:1027–33.[Medline]
  32. Tamini R, Lagiou P, Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy hormones, pre-eclampsia, and implications for breast cancer risk in the offspring. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:647–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Troisi R, Potischman N, Johnson CN, et al. Estrogen and androgen concentrations are not lower in the umbilical cord serum of pre-eclamptic pregnancies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1268–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Troisi R, Potischman N, Roberts JM, et al. Maternal serum oestrogen and androgen concentrations in pre-eclamptic and uncomplicated pregnancies. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:455–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Hovey RC, Asai-Sato M, Warri A, et al. Effects of neonatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol, tamoxifen, and toremifene on the BALB/c mouse mammary gland. Biol Reprod 2005;72:423–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Rothschild TC, Boylan ES, Calhoon RE, Vonderhaar BK. Transplacental effects of diethylstilbestrol on mammary development and tumorigenesis in female ACI rats. Cancer Res 1987;47:4508–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Find additional patient-related information at:

DES Babies May Have Higher Breast Cancer Risk


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Toxicol PatholHome page
K. Ninomiya, H. Kawaguchi, M. Souda, S. Taguchi, M. Funato, Y. Umekita, and H. Yoshida
Effects of Neonatally Administered Diethylstilbestrol on Induction of Mammary Carcinomas Induced by 7, 12-Dimethylbenz[A]Anthracene in Female Rats
Toxicol Pathol, October 1, 2007; 35(6): 811 - 816.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
R. Troisi, N. Potischman, and R. N. Hoover
Exploring the Underlying Hormonal Mechanisms of Prenatal Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: A Review and Commentary
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2007; 16(9): 1700 - 1712.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CA Cancer J ClinHome page
A. Bleyer
Young Adult Oncology: The Patients and Their Survival Challenges
CA Cancer J Clin, July 1, 2007; 57(4): 242 - 255.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
D.S. Fernandez-Twinn, S. Ekizoglou, B.A. Gusterson, J. Luan, and S.E. Ozanne
Compensatory mammary growth following protein restriction during pregnancy and lactation increases early-onset mammary tumor incidence in rats
Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 545 - 552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
In brief
BMJ, August 12, 2006; 333(7563): 318 - 318.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow patientINFORMation
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Hoover, R. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Hoover, R. N.

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 Cell Growth & Differentiation