Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18768499›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2008

Urinary lead exposure and breast cancer risk in a population-based case-control study.

Jane A McElroy, Martin M Shafer, Ronald E Gangnon, Luis A Crouch, Polly A Newcomb

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Effects of lead and cadmium on the immune system and cancer progression.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jane A McElroyFamily and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 53212, USA. mcelroyja@missouri.edu
Martin M Shafer
Ronald E Gangnon
Luis A Crouch
Polly A Newcomb
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biostatistics · CHUniversity of Missouri · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, LIFESTYLE AND OVARIAN CANCER RISKR01CA047147 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI NEWCOMB, POLLY A · 1988 to 2007
$2.6M
Cadmium Exposure and Breast Cancer RiskR03CA110796 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI MCELROY, JANE A · 2004 to 2005
$146k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA047147NCI NIH HHS R01 CA47147NCI NIH HHS R03 CA110796
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLead is a toxic nonessential metal with widespread exposure starting in utero. Lead has been reclassified in 2004 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group from a "possible" to a "probable" human carcinogen. Lead may be a facilitative or permissive carcinogen, which means that lead may permit or augment the genotoxic effects of other exposures.

methodsThis population-based study in Wisconsin gathered survey data and home-collected urine specimens from 246 women, ages 20 to 69 years, with incident invasive breast cancer identified from the Wisconsin state registry and 254 age-matched control subjects from population lists from September 2004 to February 2005. We measured urinary lead concentrations by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, adjusted the values by specific gravity, and conducted interviews by telephone to obtain information on known and suspected breast cancer risk factors.

resultsWomen in the highest quartile of specific gravity-adjusted lead level (>/=1.10 mug/L) had twice the breast cancer risk of those in the lowest quartile (<0.42 mug/L; odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6) after adjustment for established risk factors. Excluding women who were currently taking nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (n = 52), we did not observe any increased breast cancer risk after adjustment for established risk factors.

conclusionOur population-based case-control study suggests that lead exposure, as determined by specific gravity-adjusted urinary lead concentrations, is not associated with a significant increased risk for breast cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLeadLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedRegistriesSurveys and QuestionnairesWisconsinBiomarkers, TumorLead

Identifiers

PMID18768499
PMCPMC4317251
OpenAlexW2087314737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.