Environmental Risk Factors and Female Breast Cancer

Laden, Francine; Hunter, David J.

doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.101

Cited by 72 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To examine physicians' knowledge of other breast cancer prevention approaches, they were asked approximately 10 common risk factors, including: positive family history for breast cancer, for ovarian cancer, for breast and ovarian cancer; personal history of breast cancer, of ovarian cancer, of breast and ovarian cancer; increased age, late age at first pregnancy or nulliparity, early age at menarche, late age at menopause. [53][54][55][56][57][58] The number of correctly identified risk factors were summed to form a continuous measure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Academic Detailing on Breast Cancer Screening among Primary Care Physicians in an Underserved Community

Gorin¹,

Ashford²,

Lantigua³

et al. 2006

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Urban minority groups, such as those living in northern Manhattan and the South Bronx, are generally underserved with regard to breast cancer prevention and screening practices. Primary care physicians are critical for the recommendation of mammography and clinical breast examinations to their patients.Design: Two medically underserved communities were matched and block randomized. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of academic detailing in increasing recommendations for breast cancer screening in community-based primary care physicians.Setting/Participants: Ninety-four primary care community-based (ie, not hospital-based) physicians in northern Manhattan were compared with 74 physicians in the South Bronx who received no intervention.Intervention: Intervention participants received multicomponent physician-directed education, academic detailing, using the American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer.Main Outcome Measures: We administered interviews to ask about primary care physicians' recommendation of mammography and clinical breast examination. They were also queried about their knowledge of major risk factors and perceived barriers to breast cancer screening. We conducted medical audits of 710 medical charts 2 years before and after the intervention.Results: Using a mixed models linear analysis, we found a statistically significant intervention effect on the recommendation of mammography and clinical breast examination (according to medical audit) by female patients age 40 and over. Intervention group physicians correctly identified significantly more risk factors for breast cancer, and significantly fewer barriers to practice, than did comparison physicians.Conclusions: We found some evidence of improvement in breast cancer screening practices due to academic detailing among primary care physicians practicing in urban underserved communities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Academic Detailing on Breast Cancer Screening among Primary Care Physicians in an Underserved Community

Gorin¹,

Ashford²,

Lantigua³

et al. 2006

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to established risk factors, it has been hypothesized that environmental exposures may also contribute to breast cancer risk [1][2][3]. Potentially important in explaining observed differences in breast cancer rates over time and between countries are exposures related to industrialization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) study

Nie

Beyea

Bonner

et al. 2007

Cancer Causes Control

133

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We previously reported that total suspended particulates exposure (a measure of air pollution) at the time of birth was related to increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk. In this study, we examined breast cancer risk in relation to exposure to air pollution from traffic emissions throughout life. Methods We conducted a case-control study of breast cancer. Participants were women, aged 35-79, residents of Erie and Niagara Counties. Cases had incident, primary, histologically confirmed breast cancer. Controls were randomly selected from the population, frequency-matched on age and race. Using lifetime residential histories, exposure to traffic emissions was modeled for each woman using her residence as a proxy. Estimates were calculated for residence at menarche, her first birth, and 20 and 10 years before interview. Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Higher exposure to traffic emissions at the time of menarche was associated with increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.92-4.54, p for trend 0.03); and at the time of a woman's first birth for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.16-5.69, p for trend 0.19). Statistically significant associations were limited to lifetime non-smokers; there was a significant interaction between exposure at time of menarche and smoking for premenopausal women. Conclusion Our findings add to accumulating evidence that early life exposures impact breast cancer risk and provide indication of potential importance of traffic emissions in risk of breast cancer.

show abstract

“…Among contaminants found in fish are mercury (45), polychlorinated biphenyls (46), organochlorine residues, and other chemicals. These chemicals have high toxicity and carcinogenic potency, and a few epidemiological studies suggested that pesticides and some of these chemicals may be related to breast cancer risk (47,48).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumo de pescado y riesgo de cáncer de mama: metaanálisis de 27 estudios observacionales

Weihua

Zupei

et al. 2016

Nutr Hosp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenObjetivos: hasta el momento, no se ha establecido una asociación entre el consumo de pescado y el riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama. Los resultados derivados de estudios epidemiológicos son inconsistentes. En este caso, llevamos a cabo un metaanálisis para examinar la relación entre el consumo de pescado y el riesgo de cáncer de mama. Métodos: identifi camos diversos estudios aptos en Medline y EMBASE hasta febrero de 2015, así como las referencias bibliográfi cas de estudios originales y artículos revisados sobre este tema. Se calculó el resumen de riesgo relativo con un intervalo de confi anza del 95% mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios. Resultados: se identifi caron 27 estudios aptos para análisis. El riesgo relativo de cáncer de mama asociado al mayor consumo de pescado respecto al menor fue de 0,96 (95% CI = 0,87-1,07), con manifi esta heterogeneidad (Q = 69,09, p < 0,001, I 2 = 68,0%). Cuatro estudios investigaron el consumo de pescado magro y revelaron un pequeño incremento en cuanto al riesgo de cáncer de mama (resumen RR = 1,09, 95% CI = 1,00-1,19). Dado que solo fueron incluidos cuatro estudios en el análisis del subgrupo, los resultados han de ser interpretados con cautela. Conclusiones: En general, la literatura actual sobre consumo de pescado y riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama sugiere que no existe asociación entre ambos. Es necesario llevar a cabo otros estudios prospectivos con un diseño adecuado para explorar dicha relación. AbstractO bjectives: The association between fi sh consumption and the risk of breast cancer has not been established yet. Results from epidemiological studies are inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the association between fi sh consumption and the risk of breast cancer. Methods: We identifi ed eligible studies in Medline and EMBASE up to February 2015 and the reference lists of original studies and review articles on this topic. Summary relative risks with their 95% confi dence intervals were calculated with a random-effects model. Results: We identified 27 studies eligible for analysis. The summary relative risk of breast cancer for the highest consumption of fi sh compared with the lowest was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.87-1.07), with evidence of heterogeneity (Q = 69.09, p < 0.001, I 2 = 68.0%). Four studies investigated lean fi sh consumption and revealed that there was a small increase in the risk of breast cancer (summary RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.00-1.19). As only four studies were included in the subgroup analysis, results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: The overall current literature on fi sh consumption and the risk of breast cancer suggested no association. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to explore fi sh consumption in relation to breast cancer risk. 704W. Zhihui et al.

show abstract

Environmental Risk Factors and Female Breast Cancer

Cited by 72 publications

References 107 publications

Effectiveness of Academic Detailing on Breast Cancer Screening among Primary Care Physicians in an Underserved Community

Effectiveness of Academic Detailing on Breast Cancer Screening among Primary Care Physicians in an Underserved Community

Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer: the Western New York Exposures and Breast Cancer (WEB) study

Consumo de pescado y riesgo de cáncer de mama: metaanálisis de 27 estudios observacionales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About