Background
Previous research has found associations between various non-genetic factors and breast cancer (BrCa) risk. This study summarises and appraises the credibility of the available evidence on the association between non-genetic factors and BrCa risk.
Methods
We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses examining non-genetic factors and BrCa incidence or mortality. The strength of the evidence was graded in four categories (i.e., weak, suggestive, highly suggestive, convincing).
Results
A total of 781 meta-analyses from 280 publications were evaluated and graded. We included exposures related to anthropometric measurements, biomarkers, breast characteristics and diseases, diet and supplements, environment, exogenous hormones, lifestyle and social factors, medical history, medication, reproductive history, and pregnancy. The largest number of examined associations was found for the category of diet and supplements and for exposures such as aspirin use and active smoking. The statistically significant (P-value < 0.05) meta-analyses were 382 (49%), of which 204 (53.4%) reported factors associated with increased BrCa risk. Most of the statistically significant evidence (n = 224, 58.6%) was graded as weak. Convincing harmful associations with heightened BrCa risk were found for increased body mass index (BMI), BMI and weight gain in postmenopausal women, oral contraceptive use in premenopausal women, increased androstenedione, estradiol, estrone, and testosterone concentrations, high Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification, and increased breast density. Convincing protective factors associated with lower BrCa risk included high fiber intake and high sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels while highly suggestive protective factors included high 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, adherence to healthy lifestyle, and moderate-vigorous physical activity.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest some highly modifiable factors that protect from BrCa. Interestingly, while diet was the most studied exposure category, the related associations failed to reach higher levels of evidence, indicating the methodological limitations in the field. To improve the validity of these associations, future research should utilise more robust study designs and better exposure assessment techniques. Overall, our study provides knowledge that supports the development of evidence-based BrCa prevention recommendations and guidance, both at an individual level and for public health initiatives.
Trial registration
PROSPERO CRD42022370675.
