SummaryBackgroundMenarche and menopause mark the onset and cessation, respectively, of ovarian activity associated with reproduction, and affect breast cancer risk. Our aim was to assess the strengths of their effects and determine whether they depend on characteristics of the tumours or the affected women.MethodsIndividual data from 117 epidemiological studies, including 118 964 women with invasive breast cancer and 306 091 without the disease, none of whom had used menopausal hormone therapy, were included in the analyses. We calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) associated with menarche and menopause for breast cancer overall, and by tumour histology and by oestrogen receptor expression.FindingsBreast cancer risk increased by a factor of 1·050 (95% CI 1·044–1·057; p<0·0001) for every year younger at menarche, and independently by a smaller amount (1·029, 1·025–1·032; p<0·0001), for every year older at menopause. Premenopausal women had a greater risk of breast cancer than postmenopausal women of an identical age (RR at age 45–54 years 1·43, 1·33–1·52, p<0·001). All three of these associations were attenuated by increasing adiposity among postmenopausal women, but did not vary materially by women's year of birth, ethnic origin, childbearing history, smoking, alcohol consumption, or hormonal contraceptive use. All three associations were stronger for lobular than for ductal tumours (p<0·006 for each comparison). The effect of menopause in women of an identical age and trends by age at menopause were stronger for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease (p<0·01 for both comparisons).InterpretationThe effects of menarche and menopause on breast cancer risk might not be acting merely by lengthening women's total number of reproductive years. Endogenous ovarian hormones are more relevant for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease and for lobular than for ductal tumours.FundingCancer Research UK.

SummaryBackgroundPublished findings on breast cancer risk associated with different types of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) are inconsistent, with limited information on long-term effects. We bring together the epidemiological evidence, published and unpublished, on these associations, and review the relevant randomised evidence.MethodsPrincipal analyses used individual participant data from all eligible prospective studies that had sought information on the type and timing of MHT use; the main analyses are of individuals with complete information on this. Studies were identified by searching many formal and informal sources regularly from Jan 1, 1992, to Jan 1, 2018. Current users were included up to 5 years (mean 1·4 years) after last-reported MHT use. Logistic regression yielded adjusted risk ratios (RRs) comparing particular groups of MHT users versus never users.FindingsDuring prospective follow-up, 108 647 postmenopausal women developed breast cancer at mean age 65 years (SD 7); 55 575 (51%) had used MHT. Among women with complete information, mean MHT duration was 10 years (SD 6) in current users and 7 years (SD 6) in past users, and mean age was 50 years (SD 5) at menopause and 50 years (SD 6) at starting MHT. Every MHT type, except vaginal oestrogens, was associated with excess breast cancer risks, which increased steadily with duration of use and were greater for oestrogen-progestagen than oestrogen-only preparations. Among current users, these excess risks were definite even during years 1–4 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 1·60, 95% CI 1·52–1·69; oestrogen-only RR 1·17, 1·10–1·26), and were twice as great during years 5–14 (oestrogen-progestagen RR 2·08, 2·02–2·15; oestrogen-only RR 1·33, 1·28–1·37). The oestrogen-progestagen risks during years 5–14 were greater with daily than with less frequent progestagen use (RR 2·30, 2·21–2·40 vs 1·93, 1·84–2·01; heterogeneity p<0·0001). For a given preparation, the RRs during years 5–14 of current use were much greater for oestrogen-receptor-positive tumours than for oestrogen-receptor-negative tumours, were similar for women starting MHT at ages 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years, and were attenuated by starting after age 60 years or by adiposity (with little risk from oestrogen-only MHT in women who were obese). After ceasing MHT, some excess risk persisted for more than 10 years; its magnitude depended on the duration of previous use, with little excess following less than 1 year of MHT use.InterpretationIf these associations are largely causal, then for women of average weight in developed countries, 5 years of MHT, starting at age 50 years, would increase breast cancer incidence at ages 50–69 years by about one in every 50 users of oestrogen plus daily progestagen preparations; one in every 70 users of oestrogen plus intermittent progestagen preparations; and one in every 200 users of oestrogen-only preparations. The corresponding excesses from 10 years of MHT would be about twice as great.FundingCancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58 515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95 067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19 -1.45, P50.00001) for an intake of 35 -44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33 -1.61, P50.00001) for 545 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5 -8.7%; P50.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P50.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98 -1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92 -1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver. Many epidemiological studies have investigated the relationship between breast cancer and the consumption of alcohol and/or tobacco. References to over 80 studies that have collected relevant data, as well as to reviews of the subject, are given in Appendix II (www. bjcancer.com). The published results from these studies have general...

The National Registry for Radiation Workers (NRRW) is the largest epidemiological study of UK radiation workers. Following the first analysis published in 1992, a second analysis has been conducted using an enlarged cohort of 124,743 workers, updated dosimetry and personal data for some workers, and a longer follow-up. Overall levels of mortality were found to be less than those expected from national rates; the standardised mortality ratio for all causes was 82, increasing to 89 after adjusting for social class. This 'healthy worker effect' was particularly strong for lung cancer and for some smoking-related non-malignant diseases. Analysis of potential radiation effects involved testing for any trend in mortality risk with external dose, after adjusting for likely confounding factors. For leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia (CLL), the central estimate of excess relative risk (ERR) per Sv was similar to that estimated for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors at low doses (without the incorporation of a dose-rate correction factor); the corresponding 90% confidence limits for this trend were tighter than in the first analysis, ranging from just under four times the risk estimated at low doses from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors to about zero. For the grouping of all malignancies other than leukaemia, the central estimate of the trend in risk with dose was closer to zero than in the first analysis; also, the 90% confidence limits were tighter than before and included zero. Since results for lung cancer and non-malignant smoking-related diseases suggested the possibility of confounding by smoking, an examination was made, as in the first analysis, of all malignancies other than leukaemia and lung cancer. In this instance the central estimate of the ERR per Sv was similar to that from the A-bomb data (without the incorporation of a dose-rate correction factor), with a 90% confidence interval ranging from about four times the A-bomb value to less than zero. For multiple myeloma there was an indication of an increasing trend in risk with external dose (p = 0.06), although the evidence for this trend disappeared after omitting workers monitored for exposure to internal emitters. The second NRRW analysis provides stronger inferences than the first on occupational radiation exposure and cancer mortality; the 90% confidence intervals for the risk per unit dose are tighter than before, and now exclude values which are greater than four times those seen among the Japanese A-bomb survivors, although they are also generally consistent with an observation of no raised risk. Furthermore, there is evidence, of borderline statistical significance, of an increasing risk for leukaemia excluding CLL, and, as with solid cancers, the data are consistent with the A-bomb findings.

States indicated lower risk estimates than the com-Objective-To study cause specific mortality mission recommends, and when the American data of radiation workers with particular reference to are combined with our analysis the overall risks are associations between fatal neoplasms and level of close to those estimated by the commission. This exposure to radiation. first analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Design-Cohort study. Workers does not provide sufficient evidence to Setting-United Kingdom. justify a revision in risk estimates for radiological Subjects-95 217 radiation workers at major sites protection purposes. of the nuclear industry. Main outcome measure-Cause of death. Results-Most standardised mortality ratios were Introduction below 100: 83 unlagged, 85 with a 10 year lag for ali Estimates of the risks of ionising radiation rest causes; 84 unlagged, 86 lagged for all cancers; and 80 mainly on evidence from Japanese atomic bomb for all known other causes, indicating a "healthy survivors and from people exposed for medical reasons. worker effect." The deficit of lung cancer (75 These groups provide information on risks from unlagged, 76 lagged) was significant at the 0-1% exposure to high doses at high dose rates. There is little level. Standardised mortality ratios were signifi-direct evidence of the effects of lower doses and dose cantly raised (214 unlagged, 303 lagged) for thyroid rates typical of occupational exposures. To provide cancer, but there was no evidence for any trend with such direct evidence the National Radiological Protecexternal recorded radiation dose. Dose of external tion Board, after extensive consultation with the radiation and mortality from ali cancers were weakly nuclear industry and other interested groups, set up correlated (p= 010), and multiple myeloma was the National Registry for Radiation Workers in 1976 as more strongly correlated (p=0.06); for leukaemia, the national study of radiation workers, following National Radiological excluding chronic lymphatic, the trend was signifi-individuals through different employments.' Protection Board, Chilton, cant (p=0-03; all tests one tailed). The central The first analysis of the registry covers over 95000 Didcot OXII ORQ estimates of lifetime risk derived from these data radiation workers whose collective dose from external were 10-0% per Sv (90% confidence interval <0 to radiation is about 3200 man Sv. The essentials of the GM Kendall,PHD, principal 24%) for all cancers and 0-76% per Sv (0-07 to 24%) for study are described in this paper; more details can be scientific officer leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia). found in a separate report.2 C R Muirhead, PHD, These are, respectively, 2-5 times and 1-9 times the BMJlf 1992;304:220-5 combined cohorts of radiation workers in the United (a) and (d) from