| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Research and Evaluation Department, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Southern California, Pasadena, California 91188 [S. M. E.], and Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California 90033 [S. M. E., R. K. R., A. P-H., C. L. C., L. B.]
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
40 years), and one of postmenopausal women (ages 55–64 years).
Case participants were diagnosed for the first time with in
situ or invasive breast cancer from 7/1/83 through 12/31/88
(premenopausal women) or from 3/1/87 through 12/31/89
(postmenopausal women). Joint ER/PR status was collected for 424
premenopausal and 760 postmenopausal case participants. The analysis
included 714 premenopausal and 1091 postmenopausal age-matched,
race-matched (white or Hispanic), parity-matched (premenopausal women
only), and residential neighborhood-matched control participants.
Among the postmenopausal women, obesity was associated with an
increased odds of ER+/PR+ breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.45 for women in
the highest versus the lowest body mass index quartile;
95% confidence interval, 1.73–3.47). Body mass index was associated
with neither ER-/PR- tumors among the postmenopausal women nor with
any ER/PR subgroup among the premenopausal women. For both
premenopausal and postmenopausal women, higher recreational physical
activity levels (
17.6 MET-hours/week versus no
activity) were associated with a 30–60% reduction in risk of nearly
all ER/PR subtypes, although the associations were generally of
borderline statistical significance. Examining these potentially
modifiable breast cancer risk factors by tumor ER and PR status may
provide us with greater insight into breast cancer etiology and the
mechanisms underlying the risk factor associations.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Studies of postmenopausal women have consistently reported an increased breast cancer risk associated with obesity, and a number have reported a decreased risk associated with physical activity, even after adjustment for body size. In contrast, studies of premenopausal women have generally reported a lack of or an inverse association of body size and breast cancer risk, but current evidence strongly suggests a reduced breast cancer risk associated with physical activity. A recent review article based on findings from the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer’s Workshop on Physical Activity and Breast Cancer (4) suggested that the breast cancer risk reduction associated with physical activity may be greatest among women who are lean, parous, and premenopausal.
Clearly, these findings suggest that physical activity and body size have somewhat different, although possibly interrelated, mechanisms of action. Obesity is hypothesized to increase breast cancer risk of postmenopausal women, in whom the conversion of androstenedione to estrone in body fat results in higher endogenous estrogen levels than in thin women (5, 6, 7) . This mechanism is biologically unimportant in premenopausal women, whose primary source of estrogen is ovarian and who have estrogen levels that are many fold higher than for postmenopausal women. Physical activity is hypothesized to reduce breast cancer risk by altering the normal cycle of ovulation and menses during the reproductive years and in part by a body size reduction during the postmenopausal years (2) .
ERs3 are nuclear receptors that bind estrogen, resulting in DNA and protein synthesis, cell division, and breast cell proliferation (8, 9, 10) . PRs bind progesterone in a similar manner (11) . Breast tumors that express ERs and PRs behave differently, both clinically and biologically, than tumors that do not express ERs or PRs (10) . Generally, tumors expressing these receptors tend to respond more favorably to hormonal therapies and have a better overall outcome than tumors not expressing ERs or PRs.
Several previous studies have attempted to determine whether tumor subtypes defined by hormone receptor status have different risk factors. Observing that risk factors vary across hormone receptor subtypes would support the hypothesis that hormone receptor status defines biologically unique tumors with different etiologies. On the other hand, observing that risk factors generally do not vary across hormone receptor subtypes would suggest that hormone receptor status does not define biologically unique tumors but rather represents different stages in the continuum of the disease. It is not clear at this point whether body size or physical activity is associated with specific tumor receptor subtypes.
We hypothesized that obesity and lack of physical activity would be associated with increased risk of hormone-responsive tumors (ER+/PR+) but not ER-/PR- tumors, given the hypothesized relation of each factor with endogenous hormone levels. Therefore, to improve understanding of the mechanisms by which physical activity and body size alter breast cancer risk and to provide insight into possible etiological differences between hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumors, we evaluated the relationship of physical activity and body size to the risk of specific breast cancer subtypes defined by hormone receptor status. We present results from two population-based case-control studies conducted in Los Angeles County, California.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We interviewed 744 of the 969 eligible younger ("premenopausal") patients and 1579 of the 2373 eligible older ("postmenopausal") patients. Reasons for nonparticipation were: the physician recommended against contacting the patient (54 premenopausal and 128 postmenopausal patients); the patient refused to be interviewed (111 premenopausal and 419 postmenopausal patients); the patient was too ill or had died (27 premenopausal and 230 postmenopausal patients); the patient had moved out of Los Angeles County and could not be interviewed (12 premenopausal patients); or the patient was lost to follow-up (21 premenopausal and 17 postmenopausal patients).
One neighborhood control participant was individually matched to each of the 744 interviewed premenopausal patients on ethnicity (Hispanic versus other white), birthdate (within 3 years) and parity, and to each of 1506 interviewed postmenopausal patients on ethnicity (Hispanic versus other white) and birthdate (within 3 years). We were unable to identify and interview an eligible control participant for the remaining 73 interviewed postmenopausal patients.
Control participants were selected from housing units in a predefined walk pattern in the neighborhood where the patient lived at the time of her breast cancer diagnosis. We canvassed each housing unit until a woman who satisfied the case participant-matching criteria was located and interviewed. We made repeated attempts to obtain the information on matching criteria by telephone or mail when no one was home. The first eligible control participant participated for 592 (80%) premenopausal breast cancer patients and for 1205 (76%) postmenopausal patients. The second eligible control participant participated for 124 (17%) premenopausal patients and for 227 (14%) postmenopausal patients after the first eligible control participant refused. We had to identify three eligible control participants for 18 premenopausal and 65 postmenopausal patients, four eligible control participants for 4 premenopausal and 8 postmenopausal patients, five eligible controls for 4 premenopausal and 1 postmenopausal patient, and 7 eligible control participants for 2 premenopausal patients before an interview was obtained. Overall, the response rate among potentially eligible controls was 79% for the study of premenopausal women and 80% for the study of postmenopausal women, based on the total number of women we attempted to recruit to obtain a consenting control participant for each case.
Data Collection.
Each study participant completed a face-to-face interview in which she
was asked about demographic information, reproductive history, and
other known or suspected breast cancer risk factors. For each matched
case-control pair and for the unmatched cases, a reference date was
created that was the date 12 months before the case’s date of breast
cancer diagnosis. Information obtained by interview included only those
exposures that occurred before the reference date.
Participants provided information about their height, weight, and recreational exercise activities during the structured interview. We queried the participants about their height, their weight in the reference year, their weight at age 18, and their maximum weight (not including times when they were pregnant). BMI, which is a measure of body size, was computed as weight (kg) divided by the square of height (m2). We created categories of BMI based on the quartile distribution of BMI among the control participants. Adult weight gain was measured as the percentage increase in weight from age 18 to the reference age; for analyses, we used women who experienced weight loss or no weight change as the referent group and created two cut points (three categories) for women who gained weight based on the control participants’ distribution.
We queried the participants in both studies about their regular participation (at least 2 h/week) in recreational physical activity. Using open-ended questions, for each activity in which they reported participating regularly, the participant told us the specific type of activity in which she participated (e.g., aerobics, running, jogging, fencing, tap dance, and others), the age at which she began the activity, the age at which she stopped the activity, and the average number of hours/week that she participated in the activity. If a study participant started and stopped a particular activity more than once, we recorded each period separately. We then computed the average number of hours/week each woman engaged in all recreational physical activities, including seasonal activities, for each year of her life after her first menstrual period. Each recreational activity was assigned a MET value (metabolic equivalents of energy expenditure based on the ratio of kilocalories of energy expended in the given activity to that expended at rest) derived from published tables (14) . We then computed average MET-hours/week of recreational physical activity for each year of life from menarche to the reference age. We have published findings previously on the association between physical activity and breast cancer risk for both studies (12 , 15) .
Exclusions.
For the purposes of the analyses, we excluded 11 case patients and 16
control participants from the study of premenopausal women because the
women were no longer menstruating, and we excluded 13 case patients and
14 control participants for whom we had no information on family
history of breast cancer. After the exclusions, a total of 720 case
patients and 714 control participants remained in the study of
premenopausal women. We excluded from the physical activity data
analysis the first 199 cases and controls enrolled in the study,
because the questionnaire was revised to assess lifetime history of
regular participation in physical activity subsequent to the enrollment
of these participants.
We excluded participants from the study of postmenopausal women if the participants were premenopausal (still menstruating and not using hormone-replacement therapy: 58 case patients and 51 control participants), had an unknown age at menopause (usually hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy: 352 case patients and 360 control participants), or did not provide complete information on family history, education, alcohol consumption, pregnancies, breastfeeding, or weight (9 case patients and 4 control participants). After the exclusions, a total of 1160 case patients and 1091 control participants remained in the study of postmenopausal women.
Hormone Receptor Information.
We reviewed pathology reports and abstracts collected by the CSP as
part of its data collection activities for ER and PR status information
(positive versus negative) and quantitative ER and PR
values, when available, for all of the case patients in both studies.
When the CSP reports did not include hormone receptor information, we
obtained and examined medical and pathology records from the hospital
where the patient was originally diagnosed. For the study of
premenopausal patients, we ascertained ER status for 441 (61.3%), PR
status for 425 (59.0%), and joint ER/PR status for 424 (59.0%) of the
720 eligible case patients. For the study of postmenopausal women, we
ascertained ER status for 805 (69.4%), PR status for 760 (65.5%), and
joint ER/PR status for 760 (65.5%) of the 1160 eligible case patients.
In both studies, we located the charts, but results of the receptor
assays, if done, were not in the record for 50% of women with missing
receptor status information; the chart was unavailable, generally
because of destruction or hospital closure for about one-third of those
missing information; and ER or PR status, but not both, was available
for 
10% of the women with missing information.
In both studies, the vast majority of the hormone receptor assays
(85%) were performed using the dextran-coated charcoal method. The
cut points for hormone receptor-positive values were those reported by
the laboratory that performed the assay. For a very small proportion of
the patients in both studies (<2%), cut points for hormone
receptor-positive values were either not reported or were reported as
borderline. In those cases, we chose the cut point for
receptor-positive cases to be 10 fmol/mg for ER and PR, although
choosing lower cut points (e.g., 3 fmol/mg) did not
materially affect the results. The immunohistochemical method of
hormone receptor determination was performed for 8% of the
postmenopausal patients and 3% of the premenopausal patients for whom
hormone receptor assays were performed. For these patients, the
laboratory provided a written interpretation of the positivity of the
result. The method of assay was unknown for 6% of the
postmenopausal and 11% of the premenopausal patients for whom assays
were performed. The distribution of breast tumors by joint ER and PR
status is shown for each of the studies (Table 1)
.
|
We conducted separate data analyses for the premenopausal and
postmenopausal women. In both sets of analyses, we included matching
variables [age at reference year (continuous variable) and
socioeconomic status (five categories based on census tract of
residence)] in the multivariate models. For the premenopausal study,
we also included age at menarche (<12, 12, 13, 14 years), age at
first full-term pregnancy (never, <20, 20–24, 25–29, 30 years),
number of full-term pregnancies (none, 1, 2, 3, and 4), lifetime
months of breastfeeding (none, 1–6, 7–15, 16), and first-degree
family history of breast cancer (present versus absent) in
the models.
In the analysis of data from the study of postmenopausal women, we also
included number of full-term pregnancies (none, 1, 2, 3, and 4),
lifetime months of breastfeeding (none, 1–3, 4–6, 7–15, 16), age
at menopause (<45, 45–49, 50–54, 55 years), lifetime months of
estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy (none, 1–12, 13–72,
73–120, 121 years), lifetime months of combined estrogen and
progestin hormone replacement therapy (none, 1–12, 13–72, 73–120,
121 years), family history (present versus absent), and
average grams of alcohol consumed per day (none, 1–13, 14–26, 27)
in the models. When analyzing BMI, we also adjusted for average
MET-hours/week of physical activity from menarche to the reference date
(none, 0.1–3.7, 3.8–8.7, 8.8–17.5, 17.6). Conversely, for the
analyses of physical activity, we adjusted for BMI at the reference
date (<21.7, 21.7–23.6, 23.7–27.0, 27.1).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
. The risk increased in a dose-response manner, culminating in a nearly
2.5-fold relative difference in risk for the heaviest compared with the
thinnest women. Risk of ER+/PR- breast cancer was increased slightly
among the heaviest women compared with the thinnest, although the
relationship was not statistically significant. In contrast to the
findings for ER+/PR+ breast cancer, we observed no relationship of BMI
to risk of ER-/PR- breast cancer among these postmenopausal
participants. BMI at age 18 was not associated with breast cancer risk
of any receptor subtype when evaluated using cut points based on
quartiles of recent BMI. The results were not different when evaluated
using cut points based on quartiles of BMI at age 18 (not shown). We
observed no association of BMI with breast cancer risk, overall or by
receptor subtype, among the premenopausal participants. In general, for
both the premenopausal and postmenopausal studies, results for tumors
with unknown receptor type resembled the results for ER+/PR+ tumors,
probably reflecting an expected higher proportion of ER+/PR+ than other
subtypes among the unknowns.
|
, for which we
observed a marked increased risk associated with increasing weight
change from age 18. Adult weight gain was not clearly associated with
risk of ER+/PR- or ER-/PR- tumors. We also observed an association
of recent body weight with risk of ER+/PR+ tumors only (results not
shown).
We found no clear differences in breast cancer risk by ER/PR subgroup
when we examined the association of average MET-hours/week of
recreational physical activity and breast cancer risk among the
postmenopausal women (Table 3)
. We observed reductions in risk of all ER/PR subtypes for women
participating in the highest levels of activity compared with inactive
women, although the associations were not statistically significant for
either ER+/PR+ or ER-/PR- subtypes.
|
5 h/week of brisk walking
or 3 h/week of intensive running) over the time period from menarche to
the reference date. We observed a decreased breast cancer risk
associated with increasing physical activity levels for both ER+/PR+
and ER-/PR- breast cancers, although we did not observe a significant
dose-response trend for the ER+/PR+ tumors (Table 3)
. For ER-/PR-
tumors; however, risk decreased substantially with increasing levels of
recreational physical activity, an association that was highly
statistically significant. We observed no risk reduction associated
with increasing physical activity levels among women with ER+/PR-
tumors. The associations of physical activity with ER+/PR+ and
ER-/PR- tumors did not appear to vary by age at menarche or parity,
but sample size constraints limited the interpretation of these results
(not shown).
We examined the interaction of BMI and physical activity among
postmenopausal and premenopausal women with ER+/PR+ tumors (Table 4)
. We were unable to examine adequately the relation among women with
other tumor receptor types because of extremely small numbers of women
with high levels of physical activity with those receptor types.
Overall, we observed no marked variation in the relationship of
physical activity with ER+/PR+ breast cancer risk across categories of
BMI. Within both high and low categories of BMI, higher levels of
physical activity were associated with modest reductions in risk of
ER+/PR+ breast cancer.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
It remains unclear, however, whether higher endogenous estrogen levels preferentially lead to higher risk of hormone receptor-positive cancers. Only one small prospective study has examined this issue, and the results did not support this hypothesis (19) . In this study, investigators collected blood samples and questionnaire data from 7063 postmenopausal women and then followed the women for up to 6 years for the occurrence of breast cancer, resulting in 130 diagnoses. The investigators reported that total estradiol levels and the percentage of free estradiol were generally higher in cases than controls, regardless of ER status. The results for ER-negative tumors were based on only 23 cases, and women were still being enrolled at the time of the last case’s diagnosis, suggesting that the follow-up time was very short for some of the cases. It is possible that clinical disease may have been present at the time of blood collection for some of these patients, which may have affected the serum hormone levels. Clearly, there is a need for further investigation in this area.
Our findings for body size are consistent with results reported from a prospective cohort study of over 37,000 55–69-year-old postmenopausal women (20) . That study reported a similar association of high BMI with increased risk of ER+/PR+ tumors only, but the cut point for high versus low BMI in the prospective study (30.0) was much higher than the cut point for the highest BMI quartile (27.1) in the current study. Of four other studies examining this association in postmenopausal women, the results were mixed. One population-based case-control study (21) and another small case series (22) reported slightly higher mean BMI among women with ER-positive tumors compared with women with ER-negative tumors, differences of borderline statistical significance. The case series also reported statistically significantly higher mean BMI for patients with PR-positive tumors compared with patients with PR-negative tumors. A small hospital-based case-control study reported no difference in any body size indicators with ER-positive compared with ER-negative tumors (23) , and a larger case-control study with friend/neighbor controls reported no increased risk of ER+ or ER- breast cancer associated with high body weight (24) .
We have reported previously inverse associations between physical activity levels and breast cancer risk in both study populations reported here (12 , 15) . We observed a decreased breast cancer risk associated with increasing levels of physical activity for all ER/PR subtypes for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Acute as well as sustained physical activity results in many biological changes. It is well established that intense and chronic or sustained physical activity can result in menstrual cycle disturbances including secondary amenorrhea (cessation of menses) and anovulatory menstrual cycles (2) . These changes are thought to reduce endogenous estrogen exposure and have been hypothesized to reduce breast cancer risk (25) . In addition, physical activity is associated with alterations in immune function, but this relationship is complex and not well understood. In general, moderate levels of physical activity enhance immune function, but highly strenuous physical activity has been shown to depress immune function (2) .
Physical activity may also alter breast cancer risk by its effects on body size. However, the associations of physical activity with breast cancer risk defined by hormone receptor status remained, even after adjustment for body size, and did not vary across levels of body size. In addition, if physical activity functioned solely through a reduction in body size, we would not expect to observe a physical activity-breast cancer association in premenopausal women, where body size is not clearly related to risk. Others have examined the interaction of body size and physical activity in relation to breast cancer risk with mixed results. About half of the studies have reported no interaction (12 , 26, 27, 28) , whereas those reporting an association found a stronger physical activity-breast cancer association among thinner women than among heavier women (29, 30, 31) . These study differences do not appear to be related to either the ages of the participants or the study design. Of the studies reporting no interaction (all case-control studies), two included only very young, mostly premenopausal women (12 , 28) , one included mostly peri- or postmenopausal women (27) , and the other included women with a wide age range (26) . Of the studies that noted a stronger association of physical activity with breast cancer risk among leaner women, two (a cohort study and a case-control study) included women of varying ages (29 , 30) , one (a case-control study) included premenopausal and young postmenopausal women (31) , and one (a case-control study) included postmenopausal women only (15) .
We found that only recent body size and not body size in young adulthood was associated with risk of ER+/PR+ tumors in postmenopausal women. This finding, combined with the substantial epidemiological evidence of a null or inverse association of body size with premenopausal breast cancer risk (1) , suggests that body fat may be acting late in the neoplastic process, possibly by increasing endogenous estrogen levels that fuel the growth of premalignant or early stage ER+/PR+ lesions. In contrast, physical activity was associated with reduced risk of all breast cancer ER/PR subtypes for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Physical activity levels were higher in the premenopausal women than in the postmenopausal women, and activity levels in the postmenopausal women declined over time from menarche to 1 year before diagnosis, with most physical activity occurring in the premenopausal years. Perhaps decreased endogenous estrogen levels associated with physical activity reduce proliferation of phenotypically normal breast cells, which may ultimately reduce risk of all breast cancer receptor subtypes.
As with any epidemiological study, the findings from this study should be interpreted in light of study limitations. A potentially important consideration is the substantial difference in the number of participants included in the analyses compared with the original number interviewed, an especially large difference for the postmenopausal study. The bulk of the exclusions in the study of postmenopausal women were women whose age at menopause was unknown; these women were primarily excluded because age at menopause was unknown after a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy. Inclusion of women with unknown age at menopause did not alter the results.
Another consideration is the possibility that risk factor profiles differed between women with and without available receptor status information. However, as we have shown previously (13) , the distributions of patient and tumor factors (e.g., ages at diagnosis, menarche, full-term pregnancy, menopause, and number of full-term pregnancies) for both the premenopausal and postmenopausal patients were remarkably similar for patients with and without known tumor hormone receptor status. An important exception was that patients with unknown tumor ER and PR status were much more likely to have been diagnosed with an in situ tumor (17% of premenopausal and 23% of postmenopausal patients) compared with women with known ER and PR status (4% of premenopausal and 2% of postmenopausal patients). Because the hormone receptor assays that were most commonly in use when these patients were diagnosed required substantial quantities of tissue, it is likely that patients with in situ tumors had insufficient tumor tissue to permit laboratory analysis. We have reported previously that BMI was associated with a slightly lower risk of in situ compared with invasive breast cancer for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women (32) . When we repeated our current physical activity and BMI analyses after excluding patients with in situ tumors, we observed no material differences in our results, as expected given the relatively small proportion of patients with in situ tumors and known ER and PR status (results not shown). We had also observed that patients with unknown ER and PR status were somewhat more likely to have had a family history of breast cancer (19% of premenopausal and 21% of postmenopausal patients) compared with patients with known ER and PR status (11% of premenopausal and 17% of postmenopausal patients). However, when we restricted the analysis to patients without a family history of breast cancer, the results for both physical activity and BMI were not materially different (not shown).
As with any case-control study based on self-report, it is possible that the case participants may have recalled certain exposures differently than control participants, especially for exposures widely thought to be associated with breast cancer. However, both case-control studies were conducted in the 1980s when the relationships between physical activity, body size, and breast cancer risk were largely unknown and newly under investigation. It is therefore unlikely that the case participants would have either underreported their activity levels or overreported their body weights relative to the control participants because of prior knowledge of an association of either of these factors with breast cancer risk.
This study provides further clues into the mechanisms underlying the associations of body size and physical activity with breast cancer risk, and it provides a glimpse into the etiology of hormone receptor-positive and -negative cancers related to these breast cancer risk factors. However, many questions remain unresolved. It is unclear at what point in the neoplastic process hormone receptor attributes arise. It is also unclear whether high endogenous estrogen levels induce estrogen receptors during tumor development or if they fuel proliferation of early hormone receptor-positive lesions. Further research into tumor hormone receptor determinants and the natural history of hormone receptor development will provide clues into the causes underlying the development of breast cancer and will help elucidate more effective breast cancer preventive measures.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
1 Initial data collection for the two case-control
studies was supported by USPHS Grants CA17054 and CA44546 and Contract
N01-CN25404 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, Department of
Health and Human Services, and by the California Public Health
Foundation Subcontract 050-F-8709, which is supported by the California
Department of Health Services as part of its statewide cancer-reporting
program mandated by Health and Safety Code Sections 210 and 211.3. The
ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no
endorsement by the state of California, Department of Health Services,
or the California Public Health Foundation is intended or should be
inferred. S. M. E. was supported by funds from the California Breast
Cancer Research Program of the University of California, Grants
1FB-0341 and 3FB-0097. 
2 To whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, at Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente
Medical Care Program, 100 South Los Robles Avenue, Second Floor,
Pasadena, CA 91188. Phone: (626) 564-3201; Fax (626) 564-3430;
E-mail: Shelley.M.Enger{at}kp.org
3 The abbreviations used are: ER, estrogen
receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence
interval; BMI, body mass index; CSP, Cancer Surveillance Program.
Received 8/10/99; revised 3/16/00; accepted 4/24/00.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Ahn, A. Schatzkin, J. V. Lacey Jr, D. Albanes, R. Ballard-Barbash, K. F. Adams, V. Kipnis, T. Mouw, A. R. Hollenbeck, and M. F. Leitzmann Adiposity, Adult Weight Change, and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk Arch Intern Med, October 22, 2007; 167(19): 2091 - 2102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Dallal, J. Sullivan-Halley, R. K. Ross, Y. Wang, D. Deapen, P. L. Horn-Ross, P. Reynolds, D. O. Stram, C. A. Clarke, H. Anton-Culver, et al. Long-term Recreational Physical Activity and Risk of Invasive and In Situ Breast Cancer: The California Teachers Study Arch Intern Med, February 26, 2007; 167(4): 408 - 415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. H. Lahmann, C. Friedenreich, A. J. Schuit, S. Salvini, N. E. Allen, T. J. Key, K.-T. Khaw, S. Bingham, P. H.M. Peeters, E. Monninkhof, et al. Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2007; 16(1): 36 - 42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bardia, L. C. Hartmann, C. M. Vachon, R. A. Vierkant, A. H. Wang, J. E. Olson, T. A. Sellers, and J. R. Cerhan Recreational Physical Activity and Risk of Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Based on Hormone Receptor Status Arch Intern Med, December 11, 2006; 166(22): 2478 - 2483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. U. Rosenberg, K. Einarsdottir, E. I. Friman, S. Wedren, P. W. Dickman, P. Hall, and C. Magnusson Risk Factors for Hormone Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2006; 15(12): 2482 - 2488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. B. Michels, K. L. Terry, and W. C. Willett Longitudinal Study on the Role of Body Size in Premenopausal Breast Cancer Arch Intern Med, November 27, 2006; 166(21): 2395 - 2402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Cho, W. Y. Chen, D. J. Hunter, M. J. Stampfer, G. A. Colditz, S. E. Hankinson, and W. C. Willett Red meat intake and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women. Arch Intern Med, November 13, 2006; 166(20): 2253 - 2259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Adams, C. E. Matthews, J. R. Hebert, C. G. Moore, J. E. Cunningham, X.-O. Shu, J. Fulton, Y. Gao, and W. Zheng Association of physical activity with hormone receptor status: the shanghai breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2006; 15(6): 1170 - 1178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Tehard, C. M. Friedenreich, J.-M. Oppert, and F. Clavel-Chapelon Effect of Physical Activity on Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: Results from the E3N Cohort Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 57 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. D. Yumuk and P. F. Yumuk What Links Obesity to Cancer? Indoor and Built Environment, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 527 - 532. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Bernstein, A. V. Patel, G. Ursin, J. Sullivan-Halley, M. F. Press, D. Deapen, J. A. Berlin, J. R. Daling, J. A. McDonald, S. A. Norman, et al. Lifetime Recreational Exercise Activity and Breast Cancer Risk Among Black Women and White Women J Natl Cancer Inst, November 16, 2005; 97(22): 1671 - 1679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Eng, M. D. Gammon, M. B. Terry, L. H. Kushi, S. L. Teitelbaum, J. A. Britton, and A. I. Neugut Body Size Changes in Relation to Postmenopausal Breast Cancer among Women on Long Island, New York Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2005; 162(3): 229 - 237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Loi, R. L. Milne, M. L. Friedlander, M. R.E. McCredie, G. G. Giles, J. L. Hopper, and K.-A. Phillips Obesity and Outcomes in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2005; 14(7): 1686 - 1691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K.-M. Lee, J.-Y. Choi, C. Kang, C. P. Kang, S. K. Park, H. Cho, D.-Y. Cho, K.-Y. Yoo, D.-Y. Noh, S.-H. Ahn, et al. Genetic Polymorphisms of Selected DNA Repair Genes, Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Status, and Breast Cancer Risk Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2005; 11(12): 4620 - 4626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Cummings, J. S. Lee, L.-Y. Lui, K. Stone, B. M. Ljung, J. A. Cauleys, and for the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research G Sex Hormones, Risk Factors, and Risk of Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer in Older Women: A Long-term Prospective Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1047 - 1051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. B. Nichols, A. Trentham-Dietz, R. R. Love, J. M. Hampton, P. T. Hoang Anh, D. C. Allred, S. K. Mohsin, and P. A. Newcomb Differences in Breast Cancer Risk Factors by Tumor Marker Subtypes among Premenopausal Vietnamese and Chinese Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2005; 14(1): 41 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R. Gorla, N. Hou, S. Acharya, A. Rademaker, S. Khan, V. Staradub, and M. Morrow A Predictive Model for the Development of Hormone-Responsive Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2005; 12(1): 48 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Rundle Molecular Epidemiology of Physical Activity and Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2005; 14(1): 227 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. MacInnis, D. R. English, D. M. Gertig, J. L. Hopper, and G. G. Giles Body Size and Composition and Risk of Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2117 - 2125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Althuis, J. H. Fergenbaum, M. Garcia-Closas, L. A. Brinton, M. P. Madigan, and M. E. Sherman Etiology of Hormone Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2004; 13(10): 1558 - 1568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cotterchio, N. Kreiger, B. Theis, M. Sloan, and S. Bahl Hormonal Factors and the Risk of Breast Cancer According to Estrogen- and Progesterone-Receptor Subgroup Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2003; 12(10): 1053 - 1060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
